XK2I  ■3i‘! 

|.l  4-6  PRESENTED  TO  THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

PRINCETON  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 

BY 


JVlrs.  Alexander  Proudfit. 


V 


\ 


✓ 


The  United  States  as  a  Nation . 


LECTURES  ON  THE  CENTENNIAL 

OF 

American  Independence, 

GIVEN  AT 

BERLIN,  DRESDEN,  FLORENCE,  PARIS,  AND  LONDON. 


JOSEPH  P.  THOMPSON,  D.D.,  LL.D. 


BOSTON: 

JAMES  R.  OSGOOD  AND  COMPANY, 

(Late  Ticknor  &  Fields,  and  Fields,  Osgood,  &  Co.) 

1877. 


Copyright,  1877,  by 
JAMES  B.  OSGOOD  &  CO. 
All  Eights  Reserved. 


Stereotyped  and  Printed  by 
Rand ,  Avery ,  and  Company , 
li~]  Franklin  Street , 
Boston. 


MY  FATHER. 

1792—1873. 

O  thou  of  wise  and  gentle  life, 
Unselfish,  faithful,  free  from  guile, 
Disdaining  Mammon’s  sordid  strife! 

I  see  Thee  now  serenely  smile 
As  thine  own  words  of  patriot  truth, 
Gathered  in  Freedom’s  early  bloom,  — 
The  garnered  lessons  of  my  youth, — 

I  lay,  a  chaplet,  on  thy  tomb. 

July  4,  1876. 


i 


* 


* 


V. 


/ 


CONTENTS. 


How  this  Book  grew . vii 

“The  Day  we  celebrate” . xiii 

The  Lincoln  Tower . xxiii 


LECTURE  I. 

GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION. 

Not  revolution  in  the  European  sense,  but  restoration,  or  reconstruc¬ 
tion  of  political  society.  Independence  not  sought  by  the  Colonies, 
but  forced  upon  them.  A  nation  defined.  The  Colonies  had  all 
the  attributes  of  a  nation.  Preliminary  Congresses.  Dignity  and 
influence  of  the  Revolution.  Proximate  causes.  Unjust  taxation. 
Reply  to  “  The  Westminster  Review.”  “  Stamp  Act  ”  but  a  sign  of 
a  principle,  like  Tetzel’s  sale  of  indulgences.  The  “  town-meeting” 
the  equivalent  of  the  Teutonic  Gemeinde.  Franklin’s  examination 
before  Parliament.  Religion  in  America  a  training  for  liberty. 
John  Robinson  and  his  teachings.  The  pious  yeomanry  of  New 
England.  Dr.  Emmons.  Local  government.  Boston  “  Tea-Party.” 
First  stand  at  Lexington  and  Concord.  Battle  of  Bunker  Hill. 
Franklin  and  Frederic  on  the  Hessians.  Hancock,  Washington. 
Independence  declared . 1 

LECTURE  II. 

DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION  OF  INDEPENDENCE. 

Signers  of  the  Declaration.  Not  doctrinaires.  Many  men  of  profes¬ 
sional  training.  Their  work  has  stood.  No  going  back  to  mon¬ 
archy.  The  grand  syllogism  of  the  Declaration.  Principles  to  be 
balanced  with'each  other.  The  Declaration  a  testimony  against 
materialism.  Equality  of  men  as  the  spiritual  offspring  of  God. 
Their  right  to  the  free  use  of  their  powers,  and  the  full  enjoyment 
of  happiness.  Government  must  secure  these  ends.  Suffrage  and  J 
official  place  not  natural  rights.  Views  of  Jefferson.  John  Stuart 
Mill.  Liberty  and  government  not  ends  in  themselves,  but  means 
to  a  higher  end.  The  right  of  revolution.  The  conditions  that 
define  and  limit  it.  False  notions  of  French  revolutionists.  Rea¬ 
sons  why  the  French  Revolution  failed;  mainly  the  lack  of  ethical 
grounds.  The  indictments  of  the  Declaration  against  the  King  of 
Great  Britain.  The  Declaration  valid  against  new  perils.  .  .  55 

v 


yi 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  III. 

ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 

Difference  "between  tlie  constitution  of  a  nation  and  a  national  consti¬ 
tution.  Laboulaye  on  tlie  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Tlie 
first  government  extemporized.  The  second  a  confederation  of 
States.  Why  this  failed.  The  plan  impossible  in  America.  Anxi¬ 
ety  of  Washington,  Madison,  and  other  patriots.  Need  of  a  strong 
government.  Views  of  Hamilton.  The  breaking  up  of  the  Confed¬ 
eracy  imminent.  Sliavs’s  Rebellion.  The  Federal  Convention  of 
1787.  Ability  of  its  members.  Their  fidelity  in  their  work.  Wis¬ 
dom  in  dealing  with  slavery  and  confederacy.  Grand  results  m 
harmonizing  local  government  with  supreme  national  authority, 
and  in  equalizing  the  States  under  a  government  by  the  people. 

'■'Washington  as  General  and  President ;  the  typical  man  of  his  age; 
the  embodiment  of  the  American  idea;  contrasted  with  Frederic 
the  Great  and  Napoleon. . 


LECTURE  IV. 

THE  NATION  TESTED  BY  THE  VICISSITUDES  OF  A  CENTUEY. 

Its  Constitution  the  great  contribution  of  modern  times  to  the  science 
of  government.  It  has  survived  the  test  of  party-spirit,  of  section¬ 
alism,  of  foreign  war,  of  financial  crises,  of  territorial  expansion,  or 
promiscuous  immigration,  of  threatened  disintegration  with  civil 
war,  and  the  assassination  of  the  Head  of  the  State.  No  other 
government  has  endured  so  many  and  so  great  vicissitudes  with 
less  of  evil  to  itself  and  to  society. . 

LECTURE  Y. 

THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELF-DEVELOPMENT  AND  ITS 

BENEFITS  TO  MANKIND. 

The  life  of  a  nation  not  estimated  by  length  of  years,  but  by  wliat  the 
years  have  accomplished.  The  United  States  contrasted  with  Rus¬ 
sia,  France,  and  Germany.  Physical  development  not  material¬ 
istic.  Reply  to  Carlyle  and  Dickens.  Case  of  California.  Progress 
in  education,  science,  letters,  and  arts.  Church-life.  Power  of  the 
voluntary  principle.  Inventions  serviceable  to  mankind,  light¬ 
ning-rod,  cotton-gin,  compound  blow-pipe,  steamboat,  telegraph 
with  Atlantic  cable,  anaesthetics,  sewing-machine,  writing-machine, 
reaping  and  mowing  machines,  fog-signals,  &c.  Institutions  for 
diversified  and  collective  humanity . 200 


LECTURE  VI. 

THE  PEKILS,  DUTIES,  AND  HOPES  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTUEY. 

Luxury  and  corruption.  These  not  peculiar  to  a  republic.  Russia, 
Turkey,  Persia,  Austria,  Italy,  France.  Examples  from  earlier 
times."  Risks  of  universal  suffrage.  Race  animosities.  Political 
centralization.  Ultramontane  schemes.  Resources  in  the  intelli¬ 
gence,  morality,  and  patriotism  of  the  people;  in  the.  fact  that  the 
government,  while  fixed  in  principles,  is  flexible  and  improvable  in 
forms.  Need  of  improved  civil  service,  of  the  cumulative  ballot, 
of  an  educational  test,  and  of  training  fortlie  higher  statesmanship. 
Future  of  the  republic  assured  in  the  character  of  the  people.  .  2 


Publishers’  Note 
Index  . 


312 

319 


HOW  THIS  BOOK  GREW. 


HESE  Lectures  are  published  in  obedience  to  the  call 
of  the  audiences  that  listened  to  them  in  Berlin, 


Dresden,  Florence,  Paris,  and  London.1  Those  audiences 
comprised  many  persons  of  the  highest  condition  and 
culture  in  Germany,  Italy,  France,  and  England,  —  states¬ 
men,  jurists,  diplomatists,  professors,  authors,  divines,  —  as 
well  as  the  chief  representatives  of  American  society  in 
the  great  capitals  of  Europe.  An  auditory  so  diversified 
and  so  distinguished  must  have  satisfied  the  ambition  of 
any  lecturer:  but  I  am  more  proud  to  recognize  their 
attendance  as  a  compliment  to  my  country ;  and  most 
heartily  do  I  thank  my  honored  hearers  for  their  earnest 
interest  in  the  unfolding  of  American  national  life,  and 
for  their  flattering  request  that  the  facts  presented  from 
the  platform  might  again  be  laid  before  them  in  the  more 
leisurely  form  of  the  printed  page. 

When  I  announced  a  course  of  lectures  on  the  “  Origin 
and  Development  of  the  United  States  as  a  Nation,”  to  be 
given  in  the  hearing  of  Europeans,  some  of  my  country¬ 
men  were  of  opinion,  that,  in  the  painful  aspect  of  public 
affairs  at  home,  it  were  better  that  Americans  abroad 
should  say  or  do  nothing  that  should  call  attention  to 
their  country,  already  the  subject  of  so  much  adverse 
criticism.  There  were  those,  even,  who  went  so  far  as  to 
say  that  they  preferred  not  to  be  known  as  Americans, 
and  would  gladly  exchange  their  nativity  for  that  of  an 
Englishman,  a  Frenchman,  or  a  German.2  Though  I  re- 

1  See  Publishers’  Note,  p.  312.  . 

2  When  Schopenhauer,  the  German  pessimist,  was  m  Italy,  he  wa9 
accustomed  to  decry  his  country  in  presence  of  his  French  and  English 
acquaintances.  “  The  German  fatherland,”  said  he,  “  has  reared  no  patriot 
in  me.  I  am  ashamed  to  be  a  German,  they  are  so  stupid  a  people.  A 
Frenchman  once  replied,  “  If  I  thought  so  of  my  nation,  I  should  at  least 
hold  my  tongue  about  it,” 


Vll 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


•  •  • 

Vlll 

spected  the  former  feeling  as  much  as  I  despised  the 
latter,  I  could  not  entertain  it  under  the  peculiar  con¬ 
ditions  of  the  Centennial  year.  “  America  is  under  a 
cloud,”  said  some  to  whom  I  was  ready  to  listen  with 
deference ;  u  and  the  less  that  is  said  of  her,  the  better. 
Till  these  disgraceful  exposures  are  forgotten,  we  must 
hide  our  heads  in  silence,  and  trust  to  vindicate  our  coun¬ 
try  by  deeds  rather  than  by  words.” 

My  answer  was,  “  I  do  not  seek  to  give  publicit}^  to  my 
country  abroad,  nor  would  I  in  any  way  obtrude  her  insti¬ 
tutions  and  history  upon  the  notice  of  foreigners.  But 
the  publicity  exists :  she  herself  has  given  the  occasion. 
The  Centennial  and  the  Exposition  have  drawn  the  eyes 
of  the  world  upon  her ;  and,  though  there  may  be  in  some 
quarters  a  relish  for  the  political  scandal  just  now  so  rife, 
there  will  be  among  thoughtful  men  a  readiness  to  review 
the  history  and  experience  of  a  nation,  that,  in  its  first 
century,  has  taken  rank  with  the  first  powers  of  the 
world.  My  purpose  is  to  deal  with  my  country  in  the 
v  candid  spirit  of  historical  criticism ;  and  history,  and,  above 
all,  the  philosophy  of  history,  is  what  no  lover  of  truth 
and  of  man  should  fear  to  unfold.  Besides,  if  my  country 
is  under  a  cloud,  shall  I  skulk  behind  that  cloud,  and,  in 
the  day  of  her  calamity,  seek  to  hide  my  nativity  ?  There 
are  Americans  of  whom  I  am  ashamed ;  but  I  am  not 
ashamed  of  America.  There  are  things  in  America  for 
which  I  blush ;  but  I  do  not  blush  to  own  myself  an 
American.  If  my  country  is  dishonored,  brave  and  manly 
words  for  her  may  be  heroic  deeds.  Pulchrum  est  bene - 
facer e  Reipublicce^etiam  bene  dicer e  baud  absurdum  est.  All 
that  I  am  I  owe  to  my  country.  My  training  was  in  her 
schools.  My  knowledge,  faith,  principles,  whatever  I 
value  as  a  man,  whatever  makes  manhood  of  value  to  me, 
I  have  learned  of  her.  She  shall  have  from  me  no  waver¬ 
ing  allegiance.  Where  my  country  is  right,  I  shall  stand 
for  her  against  the  world ;  where  she  is  wrong,  I  shall 
stand  by  her,  and  labor  to  correct  the  wrong,  and  bring  her 
to  the  right  again.  And,  above  all,  if  there  are  wrongs  in 
her  that  are  not  of  her,  it  is  my  sacred  duty  as  a  patriot 
and  a  Christian  to  separate  the  good  from  the  evil,  and 
show  the  inherent  purity,  dignity,  and  strength  of  the 


HOW  THIS  BOOK  GREW. 


IX 


republic  against  the  vices  that  assail  all  human  institu¬ 
tions.” 

With  such  convictions,  it  seemed  to  me  that  the  Centen¬ 
nial  year  was  a  time  for  sowing  seeds  of  thought  concern¬ 
ing  society  and  government,  —  seed  sifted  from  that  great 
harvest  of  experiment  and  experience  that  a  century  had 
ripened  in  the  New  World.  It  seemed  to  me,  also,  that  the 
field  was  open  and  inviting ;  that,  at  a  time  when  the 
leading  nations  of  Europe  are  agitated  with  questions  of 
political  organization  and  of  social  reform,  —  especially 
with  such  topics  as  suffrage,  the  ballot,  popular  education, 
capital  and  labor,  and  the  relations  of  Church  and  State, — 
an  impartial  review  of  the  political,  moral,  industrial,  and 
social  development  of  the  United  States  would  be  wel¬ 
comed  by  thoughtful  men  in  other  countries  as  a  contri¬ 
bution,  for  profit  or  for  warning,  toward  the  solution  of 
their  own  problems.  To  say  that  the  interest  manifested 
by  European  scholars  and  statesmen  in  the  topics  of  these 
Lectures  did  not  disappoint  this  expectation  would  be  far 
too  little  for  my  gratitude.  To  repeat  what  they  publicly 
said  upon  those  topics  would  be  quite  too  much  for  my 
modesty.  Suffice  it,  that  to  have  given  occasion  for  such 
hearty  and  generous  tributes  to  my  country  as  were  pub¬ 
licly  uttered  by  Prof.  Zumpt  of  Berlin,  Prof.  Villari  of 
Florence,  Prof.  Whittmeyer  of  Paris,  Sir  Benson  Maxwell, 
Sir  James  Anderson,  Sir  George  Campbell,  M.  P.,  Sir 
Dudley  Campbell,  M.P.,  Mr.  Henry  Richard,  M.P.,  Mr. 
M4Lagan,  M.P.,  Mr.  M4 Arthur,  M.P.,  Prof.  Sheldon  Amos 
of  London,  Prof.  Legge  of  Oxford,  Rev.  Henry  Allon, 
D.D.,  and  others  of  like  standing,  was  more  than  a  com¬ 
pensation  for  the  care  and  cost  of  preparing  and  delivering 
the  Lectures.  Would  that  those  of  my  countrymen  who 
fancy  that  the  United  States  have  lost  the  respect  and 
confidence  of -men  of  culture  abroad  could  have  listened 
to  such  cordial  and  discriminating  testimony  to  their 
worth  and  standing  among  the  nations  ! 

If  these  Lectures  shall  have  any  value  for  American 
readers,  it  will  lie  in  the  fact  that  they  were  written 
abroad,  and  with  an  eye  to  the  queries  of  foreigners. 
Hence  back  of  the  objective  presentation  of  facts  is  the 
subjective  desire  of  meeting  difficulties  that  are  rather 


X 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


felt  than  stated.  Having  spent,  in  all,  some  seven  years 
of  my  life  in  foreign  countries,  in  the  study  of  their  peo¬ 
ples  and  institutions,  and  in  intercourse  with  their  better 
citizens,  I  have  dispossessed  myself  of  narrow  national 
prejudices,  and  am  able  to  speak  of  my  own  country  with 
more  of  judicial  fairness  than  might  be  possible,  if  I  were 
writing  amid  the  mingled  patriotic  and  partisan  excite¬ 
ments  of  the  Centennial  year  at  home.  I  trust,  at  least, 
that  I  have  maintained  the  sober  judgment  of  history ; 
and  I  hope,  also,  that  the  conviction  of  the  wisdom  and 
stability  of  American  institutions,  that  has  grown  upon  me 
as  I  have  studied  them  from  a  distant  point  of  view,  will 
impart  strength  to  any  who  may  be  wavering  amid  inter¬ 
nal  conflicts.  The  experience  of  the  past  shows  that  the 
nation  may  go  through  many  and  serious  trials  without 
being  at  all  in  danger  of  its  life.  There  is  no  fear  that 
the  Ship  of  State  is  going  under  just  because  she  has 
shipped  a  few  seas,  perhaps  has  sprung  a  leak,  and  we  are 
called  to  do  some  hard  and  dirty  work  at  the  pumps. 

I  would  here  give  emphasis  to  a  point  too  often  over¬ 
looked  in  the  comparison  of  the  United  States  with  Eng¬ 
land  and  Germany,  —  that  the  distinction  between  society 
and  the  government  is  much  more  marked  in  America 
than  in  Europe.  Though  it  happens  in  England  and  in 
Germany  that  men  of  small  calibre,  and  sometimes  of 
doubtful  antecedents,  are  elected  to  Parliament,  yet  in 
both  countries  the  government  combines  and  centres  in 
itself  the  best  elements  of  society.  Indeed,  in  Prussia  the 
government  is  the  quintessence  of  the  national  morality 
and  culture :  hence  any  serious  delinquency  of  the  gov¬ 
ernment  would  argue  a  corresponding  defect  in  society 
•/  itself.  Quite  otherwise  is  it  in  the  United  States.  In¬ 
discriminate  suffrage  on  the  one  hand,  and  political  indif¬ 
ference  on  the  other,  there  give  opportunity  to  the  worst 
elements  of  society  to  rise  to  the  surface,  and  incorporate 
themselves  into  the  government.  This  may  or  may  not 
be  a  condemnation  of  democratic  institutions ;  but  it  is 
not  necessarily  a  condemnation  of  American  society.  In 
v  the  United  States,  the  integrity  and  culture  of  the  govern¬ 
ment  are  not  the  measure  of  these  qualities  in  society. 
Who,  for  instance,  would  estimate  the  moral  and  intellect- 


HOW  THIS  BOOK  GREW. 


xi 


nal  status  of  New  York  by  the  City  Government  as  com¬ 
pared  with  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  the  Century  Club, 
or  even  with  a  dinner-company  at  the  house  of  any  gen¬ 
tleman  of  good  social  standing  ?  But,  naturally  enough, 7 
foreigners  take  the  government  to  represent  the  people, 
and  hence  form  very  erroneous  notions  of  American 
society.  Indeed,  few  foreigners  who  visit  the  United 
States  for  the  purpose  of  book-making  have  the  opportu¬ 
nity  of  knowing  the  best  society,  for  lack  of  personal 
introduction ;  and  hence  their  criticisms  upon  American 
culture  reflect  back  upon  themselves  the  circles  in  which 
they  moved,  and  expose  them  to  the  ridicule  of  society 
for  such  companionship.  I  venture  to  hope  that  these 
pages  may  help  to  correct  such  misunderstandings,  and  to 
establish  a  criterion  of  both  government  and  society  in 
the  United  States. 

I  have  been  urged  to  put  the  Lectures  into  the  form  of 
a  text-book  for  students,  but  think  it  better  to  preserve 
the  style  in  which  they  were  given :  first,  because  this  has 
more  of  directness  and  freshness ;  next,  because  this  is  the 
style  in  which  the  hearers  of  the  Lectures  will  expect  what 
they  have  asked  to  see  in  print;  and,  lastly,  because  this 
will  show  how,  in  point  of  fact,  the  United  States  have 
been  set  before  European  critics  under  circumstances  of 
no  ordinary  delicacy.  At  the  same  time,  the  conscientious 
care  which  I  have  bestowed  upon  the  text  of  the  Lectures 
in  all  matters  of  fact,  and  the  notes  and  references  with 
which  they  are  supplemented,  may  commend  them  to  the 
use  of  the  student,  even  in  the  absence  of  a  more  scien¬ 
tific  form.  That  the  opinions  which  the  Lectures  express 
upon  the  great  variety  of  topics  of  which  they  treat  will 
be  acceptable  to  all  readers  is  not  to  be  expected,  nor 
even  to  be  desired,  since  an  independent  thinker  most 
respects  in  others  the  quality  that  he  asserts  for  himself, 
and  puts  forth  his  convictions,  not  with  a  primary  view  to 
their  being  accepted,  but  because  he  must  needs  speak 
what  he  thinks,  and  hopes  thus  to  gain  for  his  thoughts 
and  suggestions  precisely  what  they  may  be  worth  in  the 
estimate  of  truth  and  in  the  interest  of  humanity. 

In  conclusion,  I  would  express  my  obligation  to  Prof. 
Dr.  Lepsius,  royal  librarian,  and  to  Dr.  A.  Pottliast,  libra- 


Xii  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMEPJCAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

rian  of  the  Reichstag ,  at  Berlin,  for  the  facilities  they 
have  kindly  given  me  for  consulting  books  pertinent  to 
my  subject,  and  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
for  public  documents  placed  at  my  disposal.  I  am  indebt¬ 
ed  to  the  Hon.  Marshall  O.  Roberts  of  New  York  for  hies 
of  journals,  official  reports,  and  other  material  made  use 
of  in  my  statistical  compilations. 

I  take  occasion,  also,  to  renew  my  thanks,  already  orally 
expressed,  to  the  committees  in  the  several  cities  where 
the  Lectures  were  delivered,  for  their  valuable  services  in 
preparing  and  conducting  the  arrangements  for  the  course. 

As  germane  to  the  subject,  and  belonging  to  the  record 
of  the  Centennial,  I  have  prefixed  to  the  Lectures  two 
speeches  made  in  London  July  4,  1876. 


THE  DAY  WE  CELEBRATE. 


SPEECH  AT  THE  “  CENTENNIAL  DINNER  ”  AT  THE  WEST¬ 
MINSTER  PALACE  HOTEL,  LONDON,  JULY  4,  1876. 

Mr.  President,  your  Excellency  the  Minister  of  the  United 
States,  my  Lord  Mayor,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen. 

THE  day  we  celebrate  ?  No,  Mr.  President  and  gentle¬ 
men,  this  day  gives  to  every  American  all  of  celebrity 
he  has  or  can  hope  to  attain.  We  cannot  honor,  we  can¬ 
not  exalt,  this  day,  save  by  becoming  in  personal  character, 
and  in  public  as  well  as  private  life,  all  that  the  day  has 
made  us  capable  of  being  as  citizens  and  as  men.  He  who 
lives  ignobly,  who  abuses  liberty  to  license  and  corruption, 
who  neglects  the  spiritual  laws  of  his  being,  and  makes 
freedom  pander  to  sordid  and  selfish  aims,  would  desecrate 
the  day  by  taking  this  toast  upon  his  lips!  For  that/ 
which  marks  the  day  is  that  it  made  us  possible  as  men 
born  under  the  largest  opportunities  of  freedom,  and  the 
highest  incentives  to  self-development  that  such  opportu¬ 
nities  can  supply  ;  made  possible  to  every  man  the  highest 
manhood  of  which  he  is  capable.  Great  as  were  its  bene¬ 
fits  to  us  as  citizens,  what  it  did  for  us  as  men  is  infinitely 
greater  ;  and  therefore  it  is  a  day  not  for  Americans  alone, 
but  for  mankind,  to  hold  memorable  and  illustrious. 

I  thank  God  that  this  birthday  of  the  United  States  as 
a  nation  does  not  commemorate  a  victory  of  arms.  War 
preceded  it,  gave  occasion  to  it,  followed  it;  but  the 
figure  of  Independence  shaped  on  the  Fourth  of  July, 
1776,  wears  no  helmet,  brandishes  no  sword,  and  carries 
no  stain  of  slaughter  and  blood.  I  recognize  all  that  war 
has  done  for  the  emancipation  of  the  race,  the  progress  of 
society,  the  assertion  and  maintenance  of  liberty  itself;  I 
honor  the  heroes  who  have  braved  the  fury  of  battle  for 

xiii 


XIV 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


country  and  right ;  I  appreciate  the  virtues  to  which  war 
at  times  has  trained  nations,  as  well  as  leaders  and  armies : 
yet  I  confess  myself  utterly  wearied  and  sated  with  these 
monuments  of  victory  in  every  capital  of  Europe,  made 
of  captured  cannon,  and  sculptured  over  with  scenes  of 
carnage.  I  am  sick  of  that  type  of  history  that  teaches 
our  youth  that  the  Alexanders  and  Caesars,  the  Frederics 
and  Napoleons,  are  the  great  men  who  have  made  the 
world  ;  and  it  is  with  a  sense  of  relief  and  refreshment 
that  I  turn  to  a  nation  whose  birthday  commemorates  a 
great  moral  idea,  a  principle  of  ethics  applied  to  political 
society,  —  that  government  represents  the  whole  people, 
for  the  equal  good  of  all.  No  tide  of  battle  marks  this 
day;  but  itself  marks  the  high-water  line  of  heaving,  sur¬ 
ging  humanity. 

Neither  is  the  separation  of  the  American  colonies  from 
the  mother-country  the  chief  thing  that  this  day  com¬ 
memorates.  That  separation,  indeed,  marked  and  defined 
the  principle  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  but  was 
not  the  substance  of  the  Declaration.  I  can  fancy  that  a 
mother  whose  eldest  daughter  had  run  away  from  home, 
married  against  her  will,  and  set  up  for  herself,  might 
become  so  reconciled  by  time  as  even  to  join  her  daughter 
in  commemorating  her  self-willed  wedding-day.  But  we 
could  not  have  the  bad  taste  to  invite  our  English  friends 
to  join  us  in  celebrating  the  runaway  match  of  Britain’s 
eldest  daughter  with  that  untitled  and  untamed  fellow 
called  “  Independence,”  over  the  sea.  No,  my  friends : 
wwhen  we  think  of  England,  it  is  not  that  we  are  divided 
from  you,  but  that  we  were  born  of  you,  and  are  insepara¬ 
ble  in  the  common  heritage  of  literature  and  law,  of  free¬ 
dom  and  faith ;  and  therefore  the  sons  of  the  men  who 
fought  against  each  other  a  century  ago  can  feast  together 
to-day. 

That  which  marks  the  Declaration  of  Independence  is 
v  fhaf  then,  for  the  first  time  in  the  political  thought  of  the 
world,  was  formulated  human  personality  as,  by  the  will  of 
God,  the  chief  factor  and  concern  of  civil  government. 
In  the  past,  the  State,  the  Church,  the  School,  had  too 
commonly  used  man  as  their  subordinate,  made  to  serve 
their  ends,  and  to  count  but  as  a  cipher  in  questions  of 


THE  DAY  WE  CELEBRATE. 


XY 


privilege  and  jDower.  The  American  Declaration  did  not 
level  any  of  these  institutions,  —  the  State,  the  Church, 
the  School,  —  but  it  exalted  man,  through  these  and  over 
these,  to  the  point  where  he  could  use  them  all  as  his 
instruments  for  his  service  and  culture.  There  was  no  ^ 
radicalism  in  the  Declaration,  no  communism,  no  atheism, 
but  a  wondrous  humanism  glorified  by  the  divine,  —  “  all 
men  are  created  equal.”  The  Declaration  did  not  seek  to 
overturn  the  State,  but  to  establish  it  as  ordained  for  the 
good  of  man.  It  did  not  make  war  upon  religion,  but  set 
forth  the  right  of  man  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness,  as  an  endowment  from  his  Creator,  and  therefore 
having  the  sanction  of  true  religion.  But  it  so  defined 
the  relations  of  men  and  things,  that  every  institution  of 
society  should  be  valued  and  cherished  in  proportion  to  its 
adaptation  to  the  well-being  of  man.  Need  I  remind  you  ^ 
how  the  principle  then  formulated  and  proclaimed  is  fast 
becoming  the  rule  of  government  in  all  Christian  states  ? 
Need  I  remind  you  how,  in  this  century,  the  British  Parlia¬ 
ment  has  made  itself  illustrious  by  lifting  the  good  of  the 
individual  above  the  traditions  and  customs  of  the  past, 
and  making  man  himself  the  argument  for  reform  ?  how, 
having  swept  the  curse  of  slavery  from  coast,  island,  and 
sea,  England  now  tells  her  officers,  that,  in  every  case 
affecting  the  life,  liberty,  and  happiness  of  a  fellow-being, 
the  instinct  of  humanity  should  guide  the  decision  of  jus¬ 
tice  ?  Take  care  of  the  man  first,  and  look  to  the  quib-  ^ 
bles  of  the  law  afterwards.  What  America  declared  a 
hundred  years  ago,  that  Britain  also  does.  It  is  because 
it  threw  the  shield  of  liberty  and  lawq  of  government  and 
religion,  over  human  personality,  that  this  day  deserves  to 
be  marked,  not  only  in  the  annals  of  a  nation,  but  in  the 
calendar  of  time. 

I  grant  you  freely,  that  neither  the  people  of  the  United 
States  in  the  aggregate,  nor  their  government  on  the 
average,  has  realized  the  hope  of  the  founders  of  the 
nation,  or  the  ideal  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 
But  as  man,  however  imperfect,  and,  if  you  please,  fallen,  ^ 
is  still  the  son  of  God,  and  that  divine  original  is  the 
grand  motive  and  incentive  to  his  recovery  and  exaltation ; 
so,  however  degenerate  and  unworthy  men  may  be  as  sons 


xvi 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


of  freedom,  that  high  prerogative  remains  the  argument 
and  hope  for  their  final  elevation.  And,  besides,  what 
right  have  we  as  yet,  in  any  land,  to  look  for  a  perfect 
society  ?  Indeed,  what  would  a  society  be  worth  for  our 
mental  and  moral  discipline  that  had  no  more  problems  to 
be  solved,  no  more  dangers  to  be  met,  no  more  evils  to  be 
overcome  ?  The  very  things  that  threaten  and  sometimes 
shame  us  give  fibre  to  our  manhood,  and  teach  us  the 
nobleness  of  labor,  sacrifice,  and  suffering  for  the  common 
good.  For  one,  having  given  my  active  life  to  the  great 
social  and  moral  conflicts  of  my  time,  though  I  can  submit 
to  a  retirement  enforced  by  physical  causes,  I  could  never 
withdraw  into  a  condition  of  mental  indifference  or  of 
moral  supineness  toward  questions  affecting  the  welfare 
of  my  country  or  of  man.  I  need  such  questions  for  my 
own  soul’s  health ;  to  keep  me  up  to  the  standard  of  manly 
virtues ;  to  make  me  broader,  wiser,  stronger,  while  life 
shall  last.  A  “  rest  ”  of  stagnation  is  death.  And  the 
country  needs  the  quickening,  energizing  influence  that 
comes  of  struggling  toward  a  higher  development.  It 
may  seem,  for  the  moment,  to  be  against  us,  that  we  have 
such  and  such  evils  to  encounter ;  but  it  is  greatly  for  us 
that  we  meet  and  master  them. 

The  century  has  been  one  of  such  striving  and  mastery. 
With  all  their  shortcomings,  the  United  States  have  not 
been  a  failure.  It  is  hard,  indeed,  to  satisfy  our  friends 
on  this  side  of  the  water.  For  instance,  a  leading  London 
journal  of  this  morning,  that  seeks  to  be  kindly  even  to  the 
verge  of  condescension,  regrets  that  the  United  States 
have  done  so  little  for  the  world  beyond  increasing  the 
affluence  of  the  means  of  animal  existence.  But,  while 
gently  chiding  this  alleged  preponderance  of  “  material  ” 
growth',  our  critic  rates  us  roundly  for  having  curtailed 
our  national  wealth  by  not  adopting  its  own  notions  of 
free  trade :  “  Their  growth  (i.e.,  the  United  States) 
would  have  been  still  greater,  had  not  false  and  foolish 
notions  of  protective  legislation,  deceived  the  democracy 
of  America.”  True,  no  doubt;  but  what  shall  we  do?  If 
we  grow,  we  are  “  material :  ”  if  we  don’t  grow  material 
enough,  we  are  “  false  and  foolish.” 

The  same  journal  would  help  us  to. the  celebration  of 


THE  DAY  WE  CELEBRATE. 


xvii 


the  Centennial  by  putting  into  our  mouths  the  theme 
which  it  fancies  shall  find  “  expression  in  a  thousand 
shapes  throughout  this  livelong  day,”  —  “  Our  forefathers 
were  a  handful  of  men,  and  we  have  become  a  great  peo¬ 
ple.”  But  I  venture  to  say  that  no  American  patriot  * 
to-day  will  find  his  inspiration  in  such  a  theme ;  for,  Mr. 
President  and  gentlemen,  that  which  we  honor  in  our 
fathers  is  that  they  disdained  the  material  and  the  earthly, 
and  were  ready  to  sacrifice  life  and  fortune  for  truth,  free¬ 
dom,  right,  —  for  ideas  they  had  thought  out  for  them¬ 
selves,  and  would  fight  out  for  mankind.  And  that  which 
we  are  proud  of  to-day  —  so  far  as  we  dare  be  proud  at  all 
—  is,  not  that  they  were  few  and  we  are  many,  that  they 
were  small  and  we  are  great,  but  that  they  put  the  spiritual 
before  the  material,  right  before  might,  man  before  money, 
freedom  and  faith  before  all ;  in  a  word,  that  they  were 
men,  and  we  are  the  inheritors  of  their  manhood. 

The  record  of  the  United  States  is  something  more  than 
of  material  growth.  They  have  proved  the  possibility  of 
free  popular  government  upon  a  scale  to  which  the  Roman 
Republic  of  five  hundred  years  was  but  a  province;  they 
have  shown  that  such  a  government  can  cope  with  gigantic 
evils  and  wrongs,  and  is  strong  to  maintain  itself  against 
rebellion  and  war ;  they  have  shown  that  the  tendency  of 
such  a  government  is  to  peace  and  good-will,  that  it 
fosters  industry  and  invention,  diffuses  knowledge  fairly 
and  fearlessly  among  the  people ;  they  have  reconciled 
liberty  and  law,  freedom  and  order ;  they  have  shown  how 
religion,  learning,  and  science  flourish  under  freedom  ;  and 
though  there  may  be  a  lack  of  some  forms  of  culture,  as 
developed  by  institutions  of  favoritism,  there  is  a  high 
grade  of  average  culture,  as  well  as  comfort,  fostered  by 
equality.  In  view  of  all  the  physical  and  social  conditions 
of  their  great  problem,  the  American  people  may  well  take 
courage  and  hope  to-day  from  the  experience  and  results 
of  the  century.  What  we  now  need  is  to  measure  our  » 
rights  by  our  duties ,  and  our  manner  of  discharging  these  ; 
to  make  freedom  the  guaranty  of  social  order,  of  public 
purity,  of  justice  and  honor  at  home,  of  peace  and  faith 
abroad. 

And  may  I  not  accept  the  circumstances  under  which 


Xviii  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

^  we  meet  to-day  as  an  augury  that  the  two  English-speak¬ 
ing  nations  will  take  a  new  point  of  departure  for  their 
common  welfare  in  the  opening  century?  First,  has  not 
the  time  fully  come  when  these  two  nations  shall  study 
how  to  he  helpful  to  each  other,  and  to  promote  one 
another’s  good?  It  is  always  well  to  cherish  the  habit  of 
seeing  the  good  in  our  neighbors.  Indeed,  who  would  live 
in  a  community  where  perpetual  tattling  and  fault-finding 
was  the  rule?  Has  not  the  time  fully  come  for  public 
sentiment  in  both  nations  to  teach  journalism  and  author¬ 
ship  that  we  don’t  care  to  hear  ill-natured  tattle  about  our 
neighbors;  don’t  care  to  know  how  the  boors  in  either 
country  use  their  knives  and  forks,  or  pronounce  their 
slang,  but  do  have  a  hearty,  manly  interest  in  learning 
each  what  the  other  is  doing  for  education,  for  temperance, 
for  virtue,  for  religion,  for  trade,  for  reform ;  that  we  are 
glad  to  hear  good  of  one  another,  and  not  ashamed  to 
learn  from  each  other  some  good  and  helpful  thing  in  the 
great,  common  problems  of  our  free  Christian  civilization? 

Next,  these  two  nations  should  stand  by  one  another  for 
the  maintenance  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  I  do  not 
mean  that  we  should  form  an  alliance  offensive  and  defen¬ 
sive,  or  take  up  a  crusade  for  freedom.  But  there  is  a 
power  that  is  growing  stronger  than  armies,  —  the  public 
opinion  of  enlightened  peoples.  Let  the  world  feel  the 

-  moral  force  of  our  united  opinion;  know  that  England 
and  the  United  States  back  one  another  up  for  that  civil 
and  religious  liberty  which  we  have  wrought  out,  and 
which  we  hold  before  all  other  peoples  of  the  earth.  And, 
once  more,  let  us  stand  together  for  the  peace  and  moral 
order  of  the  world, — at  peace  between  ourselves,  and  com¬ 
mending  peace  to  the  nations  by  all  our  influence  in 
treaties  and  conventions,  in  word  and  in  deed. 

The  other  day  I  stood  at  Ilfracombe,  and  watched  the 
sun  as  he  went  down  straight  into  the  bosom  of  the 
Atlantic ;  thus  certifying  me  that  there  was  nothing  to 
divide  the  shore  on  which  I  stood  from  that  other  shore  I 
hold  so  dear,  save  the  ocean,  that  washes  both  alike  with 
the  same  ever-recurring  waves.  Recalling  how  the  names 
that  dot  that  English  coast,  from  Barnstaple  around  to 
Plymouth,  are  reproduced  upon  the  shore  of  New  England, 


THE  DAY  "WE  CELEBRATE. 


XlX 

I  felt  how  tender  and  sacred  to  our  fathers  were  the  haunts 
and  homes  of  the  mother-country,  and  how  impossible  it 
V-r  ,c  seParate  lands  so  joined  in  common  baptism. 
At  that  moment  some  smaller  waves,  more  ambitious  than 
the  rest,  as  if  they  would  carry  the  ocean  at  their  backs, 
leaped  up  to  overwhelm  and  sweep  away  the  cliffs  of 
England,  but  fell  back  in  their  own  foam  and  spray,  leav¬ 
ing  nothing  but  the  slime  and  weeds  of  the  sea.  So  let  it 
be,  so  shall  it  be,  with  the  restless,  fuming  agitators,  who, 
thinking  to  have  the  people  at  their  backs,  would  dash 
either  nation  against  the  other.  Let  them  sink  back  into 
t  leir  own  spume,  while  we  listen  to  the  deep,  everlastino* 
harmony  that  rolls  between.  That  ocean  fills  the  awful  * 
chasm  that  else  had  divided  us,  and  is  now  the  highway  of 
peace  and  good-will.  In  the  fore-part  of  the  century  now  ✓ 
ciosed,  that  ocean  twice  carried  the  fleets  of  England  to 
desolate  our  coasts  with  war:  but  the  last  half  of  the 
century  gave  birth  to  the  steamship,  quickening  the 
exchange  of  commerce  and  travel ;  and  to  the  Atlantic 
cable,  making  the  depths  of  the  sea  vital  with  thought  and 
intelligence.  May  these  be  the  augury  of  the  new  cen- 
ury .  O  England,  mother  of  saints,  mother  of  martyrs, 
mother  of  heroes,  mother  of  scholars,  poets,  statesmen )  — 
England,  mother  of  freedom  and  faith,  of  colonies  and  of 
nations  !  —  God  keep  thee  ever  in  thy  bright  and  glorious 
way!  and  keep  us  nobly  by  thy  side,  till  this  brave  speech 
o±  ours,  last  overmastering  the  languages  of  the  world 
shall  teach  the  nations  that  the  English  tongue  knows  only 
words  of  truth  and  freedom,  of  right  and  love !  Then  come 
again  the  day  we  celebrate. 

•  The  friendly  spirit  in  which  this  speech  was  reproduced 
m  the  leading  journals  of  London,  of  the  Provinces,  and 
o±  Scotland,  was  a  pleasant  token  of  the  extent  to  which 
old  prejudices  have  given  place  to  an  enlightened  liber- 
a  lty.  But  it  was  curious  to  notice  how,  in  some  quarters, 
the  reviving  of  the  American  Declaration  seemed  to  revive 
the  antipathies  of  a  century  ago.  As  an  example  of  this, 

1  give  the  foilowing  editorial  from  “The  Sussex  Daily 
News  ot  July  6: —  J 


XX 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


“With  braying  of  trumpets,  and  booming  of  guns,  the  centenary 
of  American  independence  has  been  kept.  There  have  been  great 
spectacles  in  Philadelphia,  much  dining  and  speechifying  in  London. 
A  Dr.  Thompson  was  particularly  grandiloquent  on  this  side  of  the 
Atlantic,  and  enlarged  upon  the  Declaration  of  Independence  with 
great  unction.  He  said,  4  The  American  Declaration  did  not  level 
any  of  these  institutions, — the  State,  the  Church,  the  School,  —  but 
it  exalted  man,  through  these  and  over  these,  to  the  point  where  he 
could  use  them  all  as  his  instruments  for  his  service  and  culture. 
There  was  no  radicalism  in  the  Declaration,  no  communism,  no 
atheism,  but  a  wondrous  humanism,  glorified  by  the  divine,  —  “  all 
men  are  created  equal.”  ’  No  communism  or  atheism,  certainly,  but 
v  a  good  deal  of  inaccuracy.  How  any  one  who  knows  any  thing  of 
human  life  can  say  that  all  men  are  created  equal  passes  our  compre¬ 
hension.  The  one  great  fact  which  strikes  the  most  superficial  ob¬ 
server,  and  which  overwhelms  the  most  thoughtful,  is  the  enormous 
inequalities  to  be  found  among  men  born  in  the  same  land  even,  not 
to  say  those  born  in  different  lands.  They  are  unequal  in  physical 
strength,  in  mental  gifts,  in  the  possession  of  wealth,  in  the  number 
of  friends,  in  all  their  surroundings.  Even  if  we  take  the  same 
class,  the  differences  are  enormous.  They  begin  before  birth :  they 
continue  till  the  last  hour  of  life.  The  child  of  profligate,  drunken 
parents,  has  not  a  thousandth  part  of  the  chances  of  a  child  whose 
parents  are  virtuous  and  sober.  If  we  take  different  classes,  the 
inequalities  are  still  greater.  It  makes  all  the  difference  to  a  man  in 
London  whether  he  is  born  in  one  postal  district  or  in  another.  The 
child  who  is  registered  in  ‘W.’  or  4  S.W.’  has  ten  times  the  chances  of 
one  registered  in  4E.’  or  ‘N.E.’  A  person  of  very  ordinary  capacity 
may  rise  to  very  high  office  in  the  state,  as  we  may  see  at  the  present 
time,  if  only  he  happen  to  belong  to  the  ruling  families.  On  the 
other  hand,  one  could  almost  weep  to  think  of  the  number  of  men, 
with  genius  sufficient  to  have  shaken  the  senate  or  to  have  founded 
our  empire,  who  have  died  and  made  no  sign,  simply  because  they 
were  born  the  sons  of  tradesmen  or  laboring-men.  4  Mute,  inglorious 
Miltons’  and  4  village  Ilampdens  ’  have  passed  from  poetry  into  a 
proverb ;  so  certain  is  it  that  great  minds  have  passed  away  without 
making  themselves  known,  simply  for  lack  of  opportunity.  The 
waste  of  mental  power  is  as  great  as  the  waste  of  seeds  that  are  scat¬ 
tered  by  the  winds  over  the  earth,  and  perish  on  waste,  stony  places, 
or  are  trampled  under  foot  on  the  dusty  highway.  If  it  be  said  that 
real  genius  will  always  find  an  opportunity,  and  make  its  way,  we 
reply,  that  perhaps  the  most  transcendent  minds  will ;  but,  even  then, 
much  harder  is  the  task  where  the  surroundings  are  unfavorable. 
But  there  is  no  need  to  dwell  upon  such  extreme  cases.  We  must  all 
know  plenty  of  them  in  every-day  life.  We  must  all  have  seen,  over 
and  over  again,  men  beginning  the  career  of  life  on  fairly  equal 
terms,  so  far  as  abilities  go  :  yet,  because  the  external  circumstances 
were  propitious  in  the  one  case,  and  unfavorable  in  the  other,  the  one 
lias  attained  prosperity ;  the  other  has  had  to  lament  that  all  the  voy¬ 
age  of  his  life  4  is  bound  in  shallows  and  in  miseries.’  If  it  be  said 
that  the  statement  that  ‘all  men  are  created  equal’  means  simply 


i 


THE  DAY  WE  CELEBRATE. 


xxi 


that  they  are.  bom  with  equal  rights,  how  will  that  console  the  child 
oi  sin  and  crime  when  he  sees  the  child  of  luxury  and  virtue?  The 
second  has  the  right  to  place  himself  among  the  rulers  of  the  land: 
what  rights  has  the  first,  save  to  the  workhouse  and  the  jail?  It  is 
time  that  such  blatant  nonsense  came  to  an  end.  All  men  are  not 
created  equal,  either  in  mind,  body,  or  estate.  We  may  be  perplexed 
and  overwhelmed  by  the  greatness  of  the  inequalities,  and  we  may 
tiy  to  shut  our  eyes  to  them  ;  but  they  exist  none  the  less  because  we 
choose  to  go  blindfold.” 


Knowing  the  candor  and  courtesy  of  the  English  press, 
I  sent  a  brief  reply  to  this  criticism,  which  was  kindly 
published,  without  comment,  in  “  The  Sussex  Daily  News  ” 
of  July  29..  I  reprint  that  letter  here,  because  its  leading 
query  remains  unanswered ;  and  the  fact  that  no  English 
statesman  or  philosopher  would  dare  deny  that  govern¬ 
ment  should  impartially  secure  the  equal  birthright  of  all 
to  4 4  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness,”  shows  how 
the  doctrine  of  the  Declaration  has  permeated  English 
society. 


To  the  Editor  of  “The  Sussex  Daily  News.” 


Sn ,  In  your  issue  of  July  6,  you  did  me  the  honor  to  make  my 
speech,  at  the  American  Centennial  dinner  in  London  the  text  for 
some  just  and  excellent  remarks,  showing  that  “  all  men  are  not 
created  equal,  either  in  mind,  body,  or  estate.”  What  you  say  is  not 
only  true  in  itself,  but  serves  to  illustrate  the  wisdom  of  the  Decla¬ 
ration  of.  Independence,  and  to  fortify  its  position.  I  speak  of  the 
Declaiation  purely  as  a  contribution  to  political  ethics,  and  without 
reference  to  forms  of  government  or  the  constitution  of  society. 

.  The  Declaration  avoids  the  “blatant  nonsense  ”  that  men  are  equal 
intellectually,  socially,  or  politically;  but  it  declares  that  “all  men 
are  created  equal  ”  in  the  right  to  “  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness.  Speaking  to  those  who  were  familiar  with  the  docu¬ 
ment,  I  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  enlarge  upon  the  “self-evident 
truths  ”  by  which  the  Declaration  defines  and  limits  its  affirmation  of 
equality.  I  am  persuaded,  that,  lor  the  truth  of  history,  you  will  lay 
before  your  readers  this  statement  of  the  real  doctrine  of  the  Declara¬ 
tion  ;  and  I  beg  you  to  inform  me  whether  there  is  to-day  in  Eng- 
land  a  statesman  or  a  philosopher  who  would  deny  that  all  men  are 
created  with  an  equal  right  to  live,  with  an  equal  right  to  the  free 
use  of  their  powers  in  making  the  most  of  themselves  and  their  exist¬ 
ence,  and  an  equal  right  to  all  the  happiness  they  can  lawfully  pursue 
and  attain.  To-day  these  are  commonplaces  concerning  man  and 


.  \  -^Pr  the  fell  import  of  this  doctrine,  and  the  exact  meaning  of  equal¬ 

ity  m  the  Declaration,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  second  Lecture. 


Xxii  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

government,  that  England  accepts  no  less  than  the  United  States. 
But,  as  I  said  in  London,  “that  which  marks  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  is,  that  then,  for  the  first  time  in  the  political  thought 
of  the  world,  was  formulated  human  personality  as,  by  the  will  of  God, 
the  chief  factor  and  concern  of  civil  government.”  This  notion  of 
equality  is  simply  a  question  of  fact  in  political  science, 

I  am,  sir,  with  high  respect,  yours  truly, 

Joseph  P.  Thompson. 


Berlin,  11  July,  1876. 


THE  LINCOLN  TOWER. 


[Attached  to  Christ  Church,  in  the  Westminster-b ridge  Road,  Lambeth, 
London,  is  a  tine  stone  tower,  which  was  erected  to  commemorate  Pres. 
Lincoln  and  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  United  States.  The  cost  of  this 
tower  was  seven  thousand  pounds,  of  which  one-half  was  raised  in  Ameri¬ 
ca  by  the  Rev.  Newman  Hall,  pastor  of  the  church,  during  his  visits  in 
1867  and  1873.  On  the  morning  of  July  4,  1876,  Christ  Church,  which  is  a 
perpetuation  of  Surrey  Chapel,  was  dedicated  with  appropriate  religious 
services;  and,  at  the  close  of  these,  the  Lincoln  Tower,  which  from  base  to 
summit  was  decorated  with  the  flags  of  England  and  the  United  States, 
was  inaugurated  by  Sir  Thomas  Fowell  Buxton,  Bart.  After  this  cere¬ 
mony,  cheers  were  given  for  the  Centenary  of  American  Independence, 
and  in  memory  of  Washington  and  Wilberforce,  for  each  of  whom  a  cham¬ 
ber  in  the  tower  is  named.  Adjoining  the  church,  and  forming  with  it 
an  admirable  architectural  group,  is  Hawkstone  Hall,  a  well-appointed 
building,  to  be  used  for  those  auxiliary  social,  benevolent,  and  reformatory 
meetings  and  works  for  which  Surrey  Chapel  was  famed.  The  services  of 
dedication  and  inauguration  were  followed  by  a  collation  in  Hawkstone 
Hall.  At  the  inauguration  of  the  Lincoln  Tower,  the  following  speech  was 
made  in  the  name  of  American  citizens  interested  in  this  international 
memorial.] 

THE  tower  outside  the  building,  no  less  than  this  inner 
sanctuary,  is  consecrated  to  the  glory  of  God ;  for, 
though  it  bears  upon  its  front  an  honored  human  name, 
its  spire  points  upward  to  “the  Name  that  is  above  every 
name,”  “  of  whom  the  whole  family  in  heaven  and  earth,” 
of  every  kindred  and  tongue  and  people  and  nation,  is 
named.  The  name  you  have  inscribed  upon  the  tower 
is  worthy  of  -  this  association ;  for  Abraham  Lincoln 
shall  stand  in  history  as  a  synonyme  of  the  Christian 
virtues,  —  truth,  fidelity,  honor,  magnanimity,  meekness, 
gentleness,  patience,  self-sacrifice,  love  to  man,  and  faith 
in  God ;  the  man  who  bore  the  heaviest  burdens  and  trials 
of  his  country  and  his  fellows,  who  endured  years  of 
obloquy  and  hatred  such  as  few  have  been  called  to  suffer, 
but  lived  “  with  firmness  in  the  right  as  God  gave  him  to 
see  the  right,”  and  died  “  with  malice  toward  none,  with 
charity  for  all.” 


xxiii 


Xxiv  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

The  tower  is  “  a  memorial  of  emancipation.”  It  was 
fitting,  surely,  that  a  house  of  worship  projected  at  the 
moment  of  the  emancipation  of  four  million  slaves 
should  mark  the  date  of  its  erection  by  so  grand  an  epoch 
for  humanity ;  and  it  was  eminently  significant  that  such 
an  event  should  be  chronicled  by  a  church  bearing  the 
name  of  Him  who  came  “  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the  poor, 
to  heal  the  broken-hearted,  to  proclaim  liberty  to  the 
captives,  and  the  opening  of  the  prison  to  them  that  are 
bound.”  “  This  day  is  this  scripture  fulfilled  in  your 
ears.”  These  walls  that  you  have  built  shall  be  “  stones 
of  memorial  ”  to  all  generations,  witnessing  how  close 
Christianity  takes  Humanity  to  her  heart. 

This  exemplification  of  Christianity  has  always  marked 
the  ministry  and  work  of  Surrey  Chapel,  and  is  henceforth 
to  be  perpetuated  by  most  admirable  arrangements  in  your 
new  home.  While  the  church  proper  shall  be  kept  sacred, 
as  it  should  be,  to  the  worship  of  God,  the  adjoining  suite 
of  buildings  provides  for  the  practical  ministrations  of 
Christianity  to  Society,  especially  for  the  enlightenment 
.  and  amelioration  of  the  masses.  Humanity  is  housed 
under  the  same  roof  with  Christ.  That  is  your  answer  to 
the  materialism  of  the  age,  and  to  the  social  and  political 
philosophy  that  would  undertake  to  reform  and  elevate  the 
masses,  not  only  without  the  gospel,  but  even  by  decrying 
it.  You  say  to  such  reformers,  “  It  was  Christianity  that 
first  really  cared  for  man ;  it  is  Christianity  that  cares  for 
him  still,  and  so  makes  possible  your  philosophy  of  reform  ; 
and  Christianity  shall  continue  to  care  for  man  when  your 
philosophy  shall  have  exhausted  the  philanthropy  it  has 
borrowed  of  the  gospel  without  union  with  its  source.” 

It  is  because  of  this  practical  work  for  man  that  Surrey 
Chapel  has  always  been  of  special  interest  to  Americans. 
If  there  is  one  thing  that  marks  American  society,  and 
makes  the  American  nation  worth  commemorating  to-day, 
it  is  that  man  is  there  the  first  object  of  thought  and  care, 
and  this  through  the  development  of  his  spiritual  nature,  — 
man  set  free  under  the  guidance  of  the  gospel,  man  to  be 
kept  tree  by  means  of  his  moral  and  religious  culture.  It 
is  because  Surrey  Chapel  works  practically  on  this  plat¬ 
form  and  toward  this  ideal  that  it  finds  such  favor  in  the 


THE  LINCOLN  TOWER. 


XXV 


United  States,  and  has  always  been  sought  out  by  Ameri¬ 
cans  visiting  London.  But  we  owe  to  Mr.  Newman  Hall 
the  special  privilege  of  sharing  directly  in  your  prosperity 
and  your  work  by  contributions  to  the  memorial  tower. 
His  personal  character  and  influence  secured  those  contri¬ 
butions :  and  his  hold  upon  Americans  was  due,  first,  to  his 
earnestness  and  power  as  a  preacher  of  the  gospel ;  and, 
next,  to  his  sagacity  in  discerning,  and  his  courage  in  main¬ 
taining,  the  right  side  in  our  great  civil  conflict.  He  fore-  . 
saw  from  the  first  that  our  real  struggle  was  with  slavery, 
and  that  slavery  was  doomed ;  and  having  thrown  his 
whole  soul  into  the  conflict  in  which  Lincoln  was  leader 
and  martyr,  and  done  so  much  to  form  a  right  sentiment 
in  England,  he  is  entitled  to  call  the  Lincoln  Tower  “  a 
token  of  international  good-will.”  As  such  I  am  proud 
to  recognize  and  acknowledge  it  in  the  name  of  my  coun¬ 
trymen.  If  the  Atlantic  cable  shall  at  once  convey  to  ✓ 
America  the  report  of  your  doings  here  to-day,  I  am  sure 
that  above  the  ringing  of  bells,  the  booming  of  cannon,  the 
jubilations  of  independence,  there  will  go  up  to  God  the 
voice  of  Christian  thanksgiving  for  this  your  fellowship, 
and  the  prayer  that  the  peoples  so  truly  one  in  Christian 
thought  and  feeling  mav  be  ever  one  in  “  international 
good-will.” 

But,  if  I  stay  much  longer  in  England,  that  word  “  inter-  v 
national  ”  will  cease  to  be  for  me  a  talisman ;  for  I  am 
fast  losing  my  sense  of  nationality,  if  not  of  personal 
identity.  I  have  just  been  down  to  Devonshire;  and  I 
was  so  struck  with  the  familiarity  of  the  names  called  out 
at  the  railway-stations,  that  I  took  out  my  map,  and,  just 
in  that  western  bit  of  England,  found  some  twenty  towns 
with  which  I  am  familiar  in  New  England,  —  Dorchester, 
Wareham,  Portland,  Portsmouth,  Lyme,  Taunton,  Dart¬ 
mouth,  Exeter,  Barnstaple,  Biddeford,  Hampstead,  Plym¬ 
outh,  Falmouth,  Malden,  Milford,  Reading,  Weymouth, 
Wilton.  Your  whole  map  might  be  laid  down  on  our  side 
of  the  water;  only  we  have  no  “Land’s  End  ”  over  there, 
or  at  least  have  not  found  it  yet.  At  Plymouth,  in  the 
fine  new  Guild  Hall,  I  was  shown  a  splendid  memorial 
window  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers.  There,  amid  the  proud 
memories  of  Hawkins,  Drake,  Frobisher,  Raleigh,  Blake, 


XX vi  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

and  other  heroes  of  England’s  maritime  glory,  stand  on 
the  barbican  those  heroes  of  conscience  and  the  gospel, 
about  to  step  aboard  u  The  Mayflower,”  —  the  richest 
freight  that  ever  England  sent  to  sea.  Fresh  from  these 
memories  I  came  back  to  London,  to  stand  on  the  Fourth 
ot  July  within  the  Lincoln  Tower,  the  token  of  interna¬ 
tional  good-will,  and  hear  you  sing  “  Coronation  ”  and 
“America  ”  as  heartily  as  if  you  were  at  the  Centennial  in 
Philadelphia.  Can  you  wonder  that  the  tears  start  for 
very  joy  as  I  fancy  myself  at  home  ? 
v  But  let  us  beware  of  making  “international  ”  a  word  of 
cant.  The  international  is  born  of  the  Christian,  not  the 
Christian  of  the  international.  In  Hugo  Grotius,  the  law 
of  nations  was  conceived  of  Christian  light  and  love.  Let 
us  not  think  to  broaden  Christianity  by  calling  that  inter¬ 
national.  All  our  names  and  terms  would  but  narrow 
the  gospel  that  is  for  every  creature,  the  church  that 
knows  no  limit  of  land  or  sea,  of  earth  or  time.  How 
daie  we  restrict  the  Church  of  Christ  to  our  communion, 
to  our  order,  to  our  nation,  or  even  our  international  alli¬ 
ances  ?  .  In  our  social  spirit  and  our  political  policy,  the 
international  sentiment  does,  indeed,  make  us  broader. 
v  Not  so  as  members  of  the  body  of  Christ.  It  is  his  spirit 
that  makes  us  broad ;  that  lifts  us  out  of  all  our  preju¬ 
dices  and  conceits ;  that  teaches  us  how  in  him  there  is 
neither  Greek  nor  Jew,  Barbarian  nor  Scythian,  male  nor 
female,  bond  nor  free.  The  more  we  have  of  that  spirit, 
the  more  shall  we  manifest  of  international,  rather  of 
universal,  good-will.  And  is  not  the  spirit  of  Christ  strong 
enough  .  in  England  and  in  the  United  States,  are  there 
not  Christian  men  enough  in  both  countries,  to  make  the 
governments  feel  that  every  difference  that  may  arise  be¬ 
tween  them  shall  be  approached  from  the  Christian  point 
of  view,  and  settled  by  the  principles  of  Christian  morality 
and  equity  ?  Is  not  our  Christianity  great  enough  to  keep 
us  in  the  bonds  of  peace  ?  The  timely  assertion  of  the 
Christian  spirit  will  preserve  international  good-will. 
This  tower,  upon  whose  every  pinnacle  the  flags  of  the 
two  countries  lovingly  embrace  on  this  Centenary  of  their 
separation,  is  an  omen  of  the  new  era  of  international  har¬ 
mony  ordered  by  Christian  love.  The  people  who  to-day 


THE  LINCOLN  TOWER. 


xxvii 


with  tearful  gratitude  shall  read  the  name  of  Lincoln  with 
that  of  Washington  —  how  can  they  ever  be  estranged 
from  you  who  have  here  given  both  names  a  sanctuary 
under  the  Church  of  Christ?  The  Lord  bless  you,  pastor 
and  people,  church  and  congregation,  English  men  and 
nation,  forevermore ! 


LECTURE  I. 


GKOUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  AMEKICAN  DEVOLUTION. 

ON  the  Fourth  of  July,  1TT6,  the  then  United  Colo¬ 
nies  of  North  America  awoke  to  the  consciousness 
of  a  national  life,  and  declared  themselves  44 free  and 
independent  States ,  absolved  from  all  allegiance  to  the 
British  crown,”  and  44  with  full  power  to  levy  war,  con¬ 
clude  peace,  contract  alliances,  establish  commerce,  and  do 
aH  other  acts  and  things  which  independent  States  may  of 
right  do.” 

This  was  not  a  declaration  of  war  with  Great  Britain, 
since,  for  almost  fifteen  months,  the  people  of  the  Colonies 
had  been  in  arms  against  the  British  authorities,1  and  for 
a  full  year  there  had  been  a  Continental  army,  equipped 
by  the  Continental  Congress,  and  commanded  by  Wash¬ 
ington.2  This  declaration  was  not  a  manifesto  of  rebellion ; 
lor,  though  the  Colonies  thus  openly  threw  off  their  alle¬ 
giance  to  the  parent-country,  the  act  was  justified  by  suc¬ 
cess,  which  transformed  it  from  a  rebellion  into  a  revolu¬ 
tion.  This  last  term,  however,  in  the  political  history  of 
Europe,  has  come  to  be  so  identified  with  sudden  and 
violent  upheavals  of  society,  with  outbursts  of  popular 
passion,  and  w'itli  wild  theories  of  government,  that  I  dep¬ 
recate  the  application  of  it  to  that  moderate,  patient,  and 
matured  action  by  which  the  people  of  the  American  Colo¬ 
nies  declared  that  44  all  political  connection  between  them 

1  The  battles  of  Lexington  and  Concord  were  fought  April  19,  1775;  the 
battle  of  Bunker  Hill,  June  17,  1775.  ’  ’ 

,  /  On  the  15th  June,  1775,  the  Congress  at  Philadelphia  adopted  the  army 
before  Cambridge,  consisting  wholly  of  New-England  troops,  as  the  Con¬ 
tinental  army,  and  elected  George  Washington  commander-in-chief.  On 
the  od  July,  1775,  Washington  took  command  of  the  army  at  Cambridge. 

1 


2 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


and  the  State  of  Great  Britain  is,  and  ought  to  be,  totally 
dissolved.”  J 

In  the  conception  of  political  philosophy,  this  act  of  the 
colonists,  formally  renouncing  the  authority  of  the  govern¬ 
ment  under  which  the  Colonies  had  been  planted  and  ad¬ 
ministered,  and  asserting  their  independence  as  a  nation, 
was  a  revolution.  But  it  was  not  a  revolution  in  the 
sense  of  a  war  upon  certain  classes,  orders,  customs  in 
civil  society,  nor  against  a  form  of  government  as  such  ; 
not  an  assault  upon  an  hereditary  monarchy  in  the  name 
of  a  theoretical  democracy ;  not  a  struggle  for  power 
between  different  dynasties,  factions,  or  political  schools 
within  the  State  ;  in  one  word,  not  a  revolution  after  the 
French  or  Spanish  kind. 

The  colonists  renounced  their  allegiance  to  George  III., 
not  because  he  was  a  king,  but  because  they  had  come  to 
look  upon  him  as  u  a  prince  whose  character  was  marked 
by  every  act  which  may  define  a  tyrant,”  and  therefore 
unfit  to  be  the  ruler  of  a  free  people.”  As  Englishmen, 
and  the  sons  of  Englishmen,  they  were  free-born.  If  the 
crown  had  hereditary  prerogatives,  the  subject  had  heredi¬ 
tary  rights ;  and  it  was  in  defence  of  the  rights  and  liber¬ 
ties  of  Englishmen  against  usurped  and  arbitrary  power 
that  they  took  up  arms,  and  were  driven  at  last  to  revolu¬ 
tion  and  independence.  Call  it  not  “  revolution,”  then, 
with,  the  smack  of  European  associations  in  the  term  : 
call  it  rather  restoration,  recovery,  the  reconstruction  of 
political  society  upon  that  broad  and  equal  basis  of  rights 
of  person,  of  property,  and  of  representation,  which  under- 
lies^the  institutions  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race. 

Nay,  it  is  not  so  much  the  act,  as  the  people  who  did 
that  act,  that  arrests  us  in  the  Declaration  of  July  4, 1776 ; 
a  people  loj  al  and  true,  a  people  just  and  brave,  generous 
and  forbearing,  but  a  people  who  are  and  must  be  free,  — 
such  a  people  harried  by  usurpations  into  that  community 
in  danger  and  in  defence  which  is  the  first  consciousness 
of  national  life,  lifting  itself  up  before  the  world,  and  pro¬ 
claiming,  “  We  are  one;  we  are  free.”  "Un  grand  pevple 
qui  se  relev e  ”  was  the  description  by  which  Comte  de 
Gasparin  characterized  the  uprising  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  in  1861  to  maintain  their  Constitution  and 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION. 


3 


Government;  and,  going  back  to  that  scene  of  1776,  we 
see  in  the  foreground,  not  the  spirit  of  revolution  nor  of 
democracy,  but  un  grand  peuple  qui  se  rel've ,  —  a  people, 
indeed,  far  from  imposing  in  numbers  or  might,  but  grand 
in  the  assertion  of  right,  in  the  inspiration  of  justice,  in 
demotion  to  freedom,  and  in  heroic  sacrifice. 

-To  such  a.  people  national  independence  was  a  fore¬ 
gone  conclusion,  not,  indeed,  in  their  own  original  pur¬ 
pose,  but  in  the  logic  of  events.  It  was  given  in  the  fact 
that  thirteen  Colonies,  distinct  in  origin  and  institutions, 
and  with  diverse  and  sometimes  rival  interests,  had  made 
common  cause  in  resisting  the  oppressive  measures  and 
demands  of  the  British  Government;  in  the  fact,  that, 
nearly  two  years  before,  these  Colonies  had  appointed  a 
Congiess  to  consult  for  their  common  welfare,  and  this 
Congress  had  put  forth  a  “  Declaration  of  Bights,”  affirm¬ 
ing,  among  other  things,  that  “  the  foundation  of  English 
liberty  and  of  all  free  government  is  a  right  in  the  "peo¬ 
ple  to  participate  in  their  legislative  council ;  ”  in  the  fact 
that  a  second  Continental  Congress  1  had  now  been  in  ses¬ 
sion  for  fouiteen  months,  had  taken  measures  for  the 
common  defence,  had  raised  a  loan,  had  organized  an  army, 
had  passed  high  resolves  and,  above  all,  in  the  fact  that 
the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill  and  subsequent  engagements 
had  shown  that  the  American  militia  could  stand  "the  fire 
of  British  regulars,  and  could  supply  the  lack  of  discipline 
by  agility  and  daring.  When  Washington  heard  of  that 
battle,  he  asked,  u  Did  the  militia  stand  fire?  ”  and  when 
told  that  they  stood  under  fire  until  the  enemy  was  within 
eight  rods,  and  then  poured  in  their  own  volleys,  he  said, 

“  The  liberties  of  the  country  are  safe.”  For  more  than  a 
year,  Washington  had  been  drilling  and  disciplining  the 


1  The  first  Continental  Congress,  convened  at  the  instance  of  Massa- 
plliia(l.elPh>  Sept.  5,  1774.  The  place  of  assembly  was 

i  Chestnut  Street, 
were  spent  in  a 


cnu  setts,  met  at  Philadelphia  Sept.  5,  1774.  The  place  c 
Carpenters  Hall,  at  the  head  of  a  court  running  back  from 
between  Third  and  Fourth.  Many  years  of  my  boyhood 
school  m  that  old  patriotic  ball  Tb«  PVl'onQ 


Congress  should  be  convened  in  thebohSt  Mav. '  oSfte  IMhof  Ito 

.  This  Congress 


carried  the  country  through  the  “war  of  Inde^nden^ 
dlmg  in  numbers  and  influence,  remained  in  authority  as  the  central  gov¬ 
ernment  until  the  establishment  of  the  Confederation  in  1781.  8 


4  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

army  of  which  the  men  of  Lexington,  Concord,  and  Bun¬ 
ker  Hill,  were  the  nucleus.  The  u  liberties  of  the  country  ” 
had  been  fermenting  in  the  hearts  of  the  people.  Men  who 
for  more  than  a  }mar  had  suffered  and  counselled  and 
fought  together,  now  that  the  last  overtures  of  reconcilia¬ 
tion  were  rejected  by  the  British  Government,  must  be 
free  and  independent,  as  they  were  already  united  and 
determined  ;  and  so  the  spirit  of  independence  that  was 
in  the  hearts  of  the  people,  in  the  army,  in  the  air,  awoke 
in  Congress  the  consciousness  that  the  Colonies  it  repre¬ 
sented  were  a  nation. 

That  this  consciousness  was  true,  and  this  declaration 
not  premature,  will  be  evident  from  a  brief  analysis  of  the 
essential  attributes  and  conditions  of  a  nation.  The  nation 
is  a  people  established  and  settled  upon  a  certain  territory 
as  their  own,  united  under  a  government  of  their  own, 
and  having  absolute  and  exclusive  sovereignty  within  and 
over  said  territory  and  all  and  each  of  its  inhabitants. 
These  attributes  of  territorial  occupancy,  political  unity, 
and  independent  sovereignty,  inhere  in  tiie  nation  or  body 
politic  as  such,  and  are  quite  distinct  from  forms  of  gov¬ 
ernment,  and  modes  of  administration.  These  last  are  but 
the  outward  and  changeable  expression  of  an  inward  and 
permanent  fact,  —  the  organs  by  which  the  nation,  which 
is  the  living  organism,  serves  itself,  and  manifests  its  life. 
Sometimes,  also,  one  or  more  of  these  essential  attributes 
of  the  nation  —  territory,  unity,  sovereignty  —  maybe 
in  a  state  of  abeyance,  or  may  exist  in  awaiting 

manifestation  in  esse ,  without  annihilating  the  national 
consciousness,  or  materially  impairing  the  national  life. 
A  portion  of  territory  may  be  held  by  an  invader,  and  yet 
the  nation  live,  and  live  the  more  vigorously  in  efforts  to 
recover  its  lost  possessions.  Political  unity  may  be  dis¬ 
turbed  by  rebellion,  yet  the  life  of  the  nation,  the  inher¬ 
ent  vitality  of  the  body  politic,  assert  itself  the  more  in 
maintaining  the  social  organism  and  its  government  intact. 
Sovereignty  may  be  brought  under  by  conquest ;  yet  the 
life  of  the  nation,  burning  the  more  intensely  that  it  is 
pent  up,  may  burst  forth  with  the  volcanic  sovereignty  of 
a  revolution.  When  Marshal  Bazaine  sought  to  excuse 
his  irresolution  at  Metz  by  saying  that  he  knew  not  where 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  5 

or  wliat  was  the  government  of  the  country,  nor,  indeed, 
whether  there  was  any  longer  a  government  to  which  he 
owed  allegiance,  the  Due  d’Aumale  interposed  the  passion¬ 
ate  exclamation,  “  Mais  la  France ,  la  France  /”  That 
pathetic  outburst  of  patriotism  was  the  cry  of  the  nation, 
still  conscious  of  its  life.  Without  emperor,  king,  presi¬ 
dent,  or  parliament,  without  flag,  general,  army,  or  battle- 
cry,  without  ally  abroad,  without  resource  at  home,  her 
provinces  subjugated,  her  capital  beleaguered,  her  counsels 
divided,  her  inner  sanctuary  threatened  by  the  torch  of 
the  patricide,  France  still  lived,  the  nation,  with  a  title 
supreme  and  absolute  to  the  homage  and  service  of  her 
sons.  Germany  found  a  nation  to  treat  with  even  in  the 
extemporized  assembly  at  Bordeaux ;  and  the  world  has 
seen  a  nation  vanquished  and  dismembered,  yet  capable 
of  paying  an  enormous  ransom,  of  re-organizing  industry, 
trade,  education,  the  army,  finance,  and  at  length,  from 
the  chaos  of  conflicting  elements  at  Versailles,  bringing 
forth  a  form  of  government  to  represent,  at  least  for  a 
time,  the  indestructible  essence  of  the  body  politic.  There 
is  still  a  France,  a  people  occupying  a  territory  of  their 
own,  having  a  substantial  unity  in  a  government  of  their 
own,  with  absolute  and  exclusive  sovereignty  over  its 
subjects  and  its  soil. 

Applying  these  criteria  of  a  nation  to  the  American 
Colonies  that  in  1776  declared  their  independence,  we 
there  find  a  people  numbering  two  and  a  half  millions,  — 
equal  to  one-third  of  the  population  of  England  and 
Wales,  and  double  that  of  Scotland,  at  that  time  ;  and, 
of  these  two  and  a  half  millions,  the  vast  majority  (say 
four-fifths)  were  of  the  same  race,  language,  and  political 
parentage,1  —  Englishmen  and  the  sons  of  Englishmen, 
more  truly  homogeneous  in  feeling  and  speech,  in  manners 
and  ideas,  than  were  the  several  parts  of  Great  Britain 
itself. 

We  find  this  people  occupying  a  territory  of  820,680 

1  Mr.  Buvlce,  in  his  Speech  on  Conciliation  with  America,  places  the  pop¬ 
ulation  of  tlie  Colonies  at  2,500,000,  of  whom  2,000,000  were  English  and 
of  English  descent.  The  population  of  England  and  Wales  was  then 
7,500,000;  that  of  Scotland,  1,270,000.  By  the  census  of  1700,  the  population 
of  the  United  States  was  3,020,214;  that  of  England,  AVales,  and  Scotland, 
10,000,000.  Probably  in  1770  the  Colonies  numbered  3,000,000,  —  a  good, 
healthy  nucleus  of  national  life. 


6 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


square  mi]es,  or  more  than  nine  times  the  area  of  Great 
Britain  ; 1  a  territory  remote  from  all  organized  commu¬ 
nities,  and  isolated  by  the  forests,  the  lakes,  and  the  sea ; 
a  territory  which  they  had  redeemed  from  the  wilderness 
to  be  the  abode  of  civilized  man,  which  they  had  defend¬ 
ed,  at  cost  of  their  blood  and  treasure,  against  Indian 
tribes  and  French  garrisons,  and  had  covered  with  town¬ 
ships,  cities,  villages,  and  homesteads ;  a  territory  whose 
wooded  wastes  they  had  converted  into  a  granary  to 
relieve  the  scarcity  of  corn  in  the  mother-country,  and 
whose  rocky,  ice-bound  coasts  they  had  animated  with  a 
commerce,  which,  at  that  time,  almost  equalled  the  foreign 
trade  of  England  at  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  cen¬ 
tury  with  the  whole  world.  “  No  sea,”  said  Mr.  Burke, 
what  is  vexed  by  their  fisheries ;  no  climate  that 
is  not  witness  to  their  toils.  Neither  the  perseverance  of 
Holland,  nor  the  activity  of  France,  nor  the  dexterous 
and  firm  sagacity  of  English  enterprise,  ever  carried  this 
most  perilous  mode  of  hardy  industry  [the  whale-fishery] 
to  the  extent  to  which  it  has  been  pushed  by  this  recent 
people.”  2  Such  in  their  physical  condition  and  achieve¬ 
ments  w ere  the  people  who  now  claimed  to  be  a  nation. 
I  hey  had  a  territory  of  their  own,  which  they  had  shown 
themselves  able  to  occupy  and  improve,  and  to  hold 
against  all  comers. 

By  force  of  circumstances,  too,  they  had  now  attained  to 
political  unity  under  a  government  which  they  recognized 
and  upheld  as  their  proper  representative.  Much  as  the 
Colonies,  differed  in  their  original  political  settlement,  — 
seme  being  directly  provinces  of  the  crown,  others  pro¬ 
prietary  grants,  and  others  chartered  companies  or  set¬ 
tlements,3  they  all  agreed  in  asserting  and  cherisliinsr 


,  11T!11e.^i;ea+°f  England  and  Wales  is  58,320  square  miles;  that  of  Scot¬ 
land,  31,824:  total,  80, C41  square  miles.  5 

2  Speech  on  Conciliation  with  America 

3  Massachusetts,  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island  held  charters  from 
the  ciown,  by  virtue  ot  ^dncli  the  government  was  largely  vested  in  the 
freemen  of  the  company  or  colony.  The  charters  of  Connecticut  and 
Rhode  Island  were  so  liberal,  that,  for  many  years  after  the  Revolution 

ffiTni  m  PimTTe  of  State  constitutions,  -  that  of  Connecticut  til 
1318,  that  of  Rhode  Island  till  1842. 

Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  Delaware,  and  at  first,  also,  New  Jersey  and 
the  Carolmas,  had  proprietary  governments:  i.e.,  the  proprietor  who  held 
the  giant,  m  person  from  the  crown  had  also  a  control  in  "political  affairs. 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION. 


T 


that  good  old  English  principle  of  local  self-government, 
which  was  fast  falling  into  desuetude  in  England  itself. 
The  Hon.  George  C.  Brodrick,  in  his  valuable  essay  on 
“  Local  Government  in  England,”  observes,  “It  is  a  curi¬ 
ous  and  instructive  fact,  that,  while  the  primitive  ideal  of 
self-government  had  become  obscured  both  in  English 
counties  and  in  English  boroughs,  it  not  only  survived, 
but  acquired  a  fresh  vitality,  in  the  Colonies  of  New  Eng¬ 
land.”  1  By  degrees,  this  local  self-government,  practised 
in  districts  and  townships  as  matter  of  custom  and  conven¬ 
ience,  expanded  in  confederate  counsel  and  action  in  mat¬ 
ters  of  common  duty  and  danger.  In  those  days,  before 
steam-navigation  was  dreamed  of,  the  mother-country  was 
so  distant,  and  communication  was  so  tardy  and  irregular, 
that'  the  colonists  were  often  compelled  to  act  upon  their 
own  responsibility,  without  waiting  for  the  sanction  of 
the  crown.  As  far  back  as  1C43,  four  of  the  Colonies  of 
New  England  —  Plymouth,  Massachusetts  Bay,  Connec¬ 
ticut,  and  New  Haven — formed  a  confederacy  for  their 
mutual  safety  and  welfare,  especially  as  against  the  French 
and  the  Indians ;  and  this  league,  under  the  name  of  “  The 
United  Colonies  of  New  England,”  —  “a  self-governing 
association  of  self-governing  English  commonwealths,” 2 
assuming  in  so  far  the  functions  of  a  distinct  sovereignty,  — 
lasted  for  more  than  forty  years.  In  1T54,  twenty-two 
years  before  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  a  general 
convention  of  the  Colonies  was  summoned  at  Albany  to 
renew  a  treaty  with  the  “  Six  Nations  ”  of  Indians.  Ben¬ 
jamin  Franklin  proposed  a  formal  union  of  the  Colonies 
as  their  only  protection  against  the  French.  His  motto 

The  charter  to  Lord  Raltimore,  however,  reserved  to  the  colonists  a  share 
in  legislation;  and  Penn  freely  gave  the  same  right  to  his  colonists. 

New  Hampshire,  New  York,  Virginia,  Georgia,  and  afterwards  New 
Jersey  and  the  Carolinas,  were  under  royal  or  provincial  governments. 
The  governor  was  appointed  by  the  crown,  and  also  a  council,  which  served 
as  the  upper  house  of  the  legislature;  the  lower  house  being  elected  by 
the  people.  It  is  sufficient  for  my  purpose  to  point  out  the  three  forms  of 
colonial  government,  without  stating  the  specilic  differences  under  each 
form. 

1  Cobden-Club  Essays  for  1875,  p.  25. 

2  Palfrey:  History  of  New  England,  i.  034.  As  a  consequence  of  the 
union  of  New  Haven  with  Connecticut,  the  confederacy  of  1043  was 
terminated  in  1007;  but  a  new  league  was  entered  into  between  Plymouth, 
Massachusetts,  and  Connecticut  (1072),  which  was  finally  dissolved  in  1084. 
Thus  the  principle  of  colonial  confederation  was  in  action  in  New  Eng¬ 
land,  in  the  seventeenth  century,  for  a  x>eriod  of  forty  years. 


8 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


was,  “  Unite,  or  die  !  ” 1  Sometimes  such  conventions  were 
summoned  or  sanctioned  by  the  officers  of  the  crown  • 
sometimes  they  were  quite  outside  the  pale  of  legitimate 
government  as  recognized  by  the  crown  :  but,  dictated  by 
necessity,  and  justified  by  their  beneficial  results,  they 
were  educating  the  people  to  independence  of  the  crown, 
lhe  union  urged  by  Franklin  against  the  military  rival  of 
their  parent-country,  twenty  years  later,  was  formed  to 
protect  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  Colonies  against  the 
encroachments  of  Great  Britain  herself.  Virtually,  indeed, 
le  political  union  of  the  American  Colonies  was  formed  as 
early  as  1765,  though  few  then  dreamed  of  an  independ- 
ent  nation  as  its  issue.  In  June  of  that  year,  James  Otis 
ot  Boston  “  advised  the  calling  of  an  American  Congress, 
which  should  come  together  without  asking  the  consent 
ot  the  king,  and  should  consist  of  committees  from  each 
ot  the  thirteen  Colonies,  to  be  appointed  respectively  by 
the  delegates  of  the  people,  without  regard  to  the  other 
branches  ot  the  legislature.” 2  In  October  of  the  .same 
year,  the  representatives  of  the  people  of  eleven  Colonies 
met  m  New  York  “  to  consult  together,  and  consider  of 
a  united  representation  to  implore  relief.”  Petition,  re- 


1  The  proceedings  of  this  convention  at  Albany,  in  1754  are  mven  at 
They Rare  ^ 

tlrifvem^Cofon’iir1 1? i,7,“er  ap,'0i,lte?  y  the  Sove^ri^  ]egMa“5 

®  ,ionete)lierUTrade>^aifdt7he^rp^ntatimi^’l’t  ^Thus^the 

W«e™iTwverneiSnK^lf^  a°V’-f  parliament,  “  by  virtue  of  which  one 

ported  by  the  crown  and  a  gaancfcoimcU  to  ^be  ehiseF/bythe  Represen¬ 
tatives  of  the  people  of  the  several  Colonies.  The  acts  of  the  council 

52!  ^SailCtI°nea'  lirst  ’’y  the  president,  and  then  hv  rt.e  kfng 

l  ion  h  this  plan  never  came  to  maturity,  it  shows  how  the  colonists  chef' 
ished  local  government  and  union,  without  aiming  at  independence 
1  Bancroft :  History  of  the  United  States,  vol  v  p  27U 

countrv  Adam*  ?aid  0tis>  ‘.‘He  was  at  the  head  of ‘the  cause  of  Ins 

nation  thib^  of  breatl‘ed  int°  the 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  9 

monstrance,  repeal,  were  in  their  minds,  with  no  thought 
as  yet  of  separation  and  war.  But  in  the  very  act  of  thus 
coming  together  as  directly  representing  the  popular  branch 
in  the  government,  without  regard  to  governors,  councils, 
magistrates,  or  other  parties  claiming  to  represent  the 
crown,  they  asserted  a  right  of  self-government  inherent 
in  the  people,  and  a  unity  of  political  life  above  all  diver¬ 
sities  of  form.  That  union  found  expression  in  such  sen¬ 
timents  as  these :  44  There  ought  to  he  no  New-England 
man,  no  New-Yorker,  known  on  the  continent,  but  all  of 
us  Americans ;  ”  the  Colonies  are  46  a  bundle  of  sticks, 
which  can  neither  be  bent  nor  broken.”  And,  while  the 
hands  of  those  delegates  draughted  a  union  of  the  Colo¬ 
nies  for  their  present  redress,  they  unconsciously  drew  the 
faint  shadowy  outlines  of  the  nation,  from  which  the  fiery 
alchemy  of  war  should  bring  out  the  resplendent  figure 
of  Liberty.  The  nation  was  there  in  posse ;  a  people 
permanently  settled  upon  a  territory,  which  by  enterprise, 
by  labor,  or  by  purchase,  they  had  made  their  own,  had 
redeemed  from  nature,  had  enriched  by  cultivation,  had 
defended  from  jealous  rivals  and  from  savage  foes ;  a 
people  that  through  forms  as  yet  inchoate,  or  occasional 
and  flexible,  had  come  to  realize  their  political  unity  of 
interest,  of  spirit,  and  of  action.  Nor  was  the  third  essen¬ 
tial  attribute  of  sovereignty  wanting,  though  as  yet  there 
was  no  formal,  coherent  organization  of  sovereign  power. 

When  this  Congress  of  1765  had  adjourned,  and  so  was 
finally  dissolved,  the  people  of  the  several  Colonies  ratified 
its  conclusions,  and  accepted  these  as  their  own :  and, 
though  nine  years  elapsed  before  another  Congress  was 
convened,  the  colonists  had  the  consciousness  of  a  sov¬ 
ereignty  latent  within  themselves ;  they  had  before  them 
the  precedent  of  a  political  assembly  emanating  directly 
from  the  people,  criticising  and  condemning  the  acts  of 
King  and  Parliament,  issuing  remonstrances  and  appeals 
to  the  people  and  the  government  of  Great  Britain,  and 
proposing  terms  of  future  concord ;  in  a  word,  exercis¬ 
ing  the  functions  of  a  distinct  political  power.  With  this 
precedent  in  view,  they  felt,  that,  in  any  emergency,  they 
could  again  summon  this  power  of  the  united  people  to 
give  such  counsel,  and  take  such  action,  as  their  common 


10  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

welfare  should  demand;  and  when  at  length,  in  1774,  a 
Continental  Congress  was  again  invoked,  though  this  body 
set  before  it  as  the  chief  object  of  its  labors  “the  union  of 
Cieat  bntain  and  the  Colonies  on  a  constitutional  founda¬ 
tion,  yet,  m  the  very  fact  of  summoning  a  body  of  their 
own  creation  to  treat  with  the  parent-country  of  such 
questions  as  union,  obedience,  allegiance,  the  instinct  of 
tiie  colonists  was  leading  them  to  the  recognition  of  a 
power  as  yet  incorporeal  and  indefinable,  —  the  sovereignty 
?/  When  this  Congress  put  forth  the  resolve, 

that  “the  inhabitants  of  the  English  Colonies  in  North 

merica  .  .  .  are  entitled  to  life,  liberty,  and  property, 
and  they  have  never  ceded  to  any  sovereign  power  what¬ 
ever  a  right  to  dispose  of  either  without  their  consent ;  ” 
a.nd,  further  “  that  they  are  entitled  to  a  free  and  exclu¬ 
sive  power  of  legislation  m  their  several  provincial  legisla- 
uies,  ^  nascent  sovereignty  had  already  taken 

on  its  positive  form.  The  “Declaration  of  Eights”  in 
m4,, was  the  herakl  of  the  “Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence  in  1*76:  it  needed  only  that  this  last  magic  word 
should  be  spoken,  and  a  new  nation  stood  unveiled  before 

tiie  world  equipped  with  territory,  with  unity,  and  with 
sovereignty.  J 

This  nation  must  needs  pass  through  a  baptism  of  fire 
and  blood  before  she  could  wear  unchallenged  on  her 
now  le  name  Ihe  United  States  of  America.  More  than 
live  years  of  war,  and  seven  years  of  nominal  hostilities, 

n  7  f'i  A  SePtemljer,  1783,  the  independence  of  these 
United  States  shall  be  recognized  by  Great  Britain: 
nearly  thirteen  years  of  political  experiment  and  uncer¬ 
tainty,  before,  m  March,  1789,  the  republic  shall  be  defini- 
tively  established  under  a  Constitution,  with  Georo-e 
Washington  as  its  first  president :  vet  the  nation  came 
into  being  on  that  fourth  day  of  July,  1776,  when  the 
Continental  Congress  at  Philadelphia  issued  the  Declara- 
°,1  dependence.  I  fiat  Declaration  was  put  fortfi 
With  the  utmost  deliberation,  dignity,  and  solemnity. 
The  representatives  who  signed  it,  “in  the  name  and  by 
the  authority  ol  the  good  people  of  the  Colonies,”  pledged 
to  each  other  “  their  lives,  their  fortunes,  and  their  sacred 
lonor ;  and  for  tfie  motives  of  tfieir  action,  and  tfie  rec- 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  H 

0 

titude  of  their  intentions,  they  appealed  to  “  a  candid 
world”  and  to  “the  Supreme  Judge  of  the  world.”  The 
independence  they  then  declared,  and  the  nation  that  they 
brought  to  consciousness  by  that  Declaration,  have  stood 
for  a  hundred  years. 

I  have  dwelt  thus  minutely  upon  the  essential  attributes 
of  a  nation,  because  in  the  fact  that  the  colonists  had 
grown  to  be  a  nation  is  given  a  justification  of  the  Revolu¬ 
tion,  and  because,  also,  in  this  fact  is  given  a  conclusive 
answer  to  the  pretended  “  right  of  secession,”  under  which 
was  organized  the  rebellion  of  the  Southern  States  in  1861. 
That  plea  was,  that  the  Union  was  a  compact  of  several 
independent  sovereignties,  and  that  any  or  all  of  these 
could  at  any  time  withdraw  from  the  compact,  renounce 
the  paramount  sovereignty  of  the  Union,  and  fall  back 
upon  its  original  independence  as  a  power,  or  enter  into 
new  compacts  with  other  powers  according  to  its. pleasure. 
But  the  original  thirteen  Colonies  became  independent 
States  only  through  their  union :  it  was  a  Congress  repre¬ 
senting  “the  good  people  of  the  Colonies”  that  proclaimed 
the  fact  of  independence.1  The  nation  existed  long  before 
the  Constitution,  which  it  made  for  a  more  perfect  realiza¬ 
tion  of  its  inherent  and  essential  unity  and  sovereignty ; 
the  nation  existed  years  before  the  Articles  of  Confedera¬ 
tion,  which  were  a  crude  attempt  to  give  expression  to 
that  unity  and  sovereignty,  under  the  pressure  of  the 
Revolutionary  war ;  and  the  nation  existed  before  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  by  which  it  declared  its  own 
consciousness,  and  challenged  the  recognition  of  the 
world.2  The  nation  might  be  rent  in  twain  by  civil  war, 
or  be  robbed  of  a  portion  of  its  territory  and  people  by 
conquest ;  and  it  is  even  conceivable  that  the  nation, 
acting  of  its  free-will  and  in  its  entirety,  —  in  view  of  the 
vastness  of  its  territory  or  its  population,  or  of  certain 

1  The  Declaration  reads,  “We,  the  representatives,  &e . do,  in  the 

name  and  by  the  authority  of  the  yood  people  of  these  Colonies,  solemnly 
publish  and  declare,  that  these  united  Colonies  are,  and  of  right  ought  to 
he,  free  and  independent  States.”  Many  of  the  members  of  this  Congress 
had  been  elected  directly  by  conventions  of  the  people. 

2  Ry  the  preamble  to  the  Declaration,  it  was  a  “  people  ”  —  not  a  confed¬ 
eration  of  governments,  but  a  people  —  that  dissolved  the  political  bonds 
which  had  connected  them  with  another,  and  assumed  “a  separate  and 
equal  station  ”  —  that  is,  as  a  distinct  nation  —  “  among  the  powers  of  the 
earth.”  The  nation  lay  back  of  all  forms  of  political  organization. 


12  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

features  of  its  physical  geography,  —  might  deem  it  wise  to 
portion  off  a  section  of  itself  as  a  separate  political  com¬ 
munity,  for  greater  convenience  or  efficiency  of  govern¬ 
ment.  Lut  “right  ot  secession”  there  is  and  can  be 
none.  To  admit  such  a  right  would  be  to  put  into  each 
and  every  constituent  of  the  nation  the  means  of  the 
political  suicide  of  the  whole  body.  The  nation  is  not  a 
group  of  distinct  commonwealths  held  together  by  a  rope 
ot  sand:  it  is  a  people, . a  living  organism,  having  in  itself 
inahenable  and  indivisible  functions  and  attributes  of 
liie.  Such  a  nation  is  the  people  of  the  United  States 
ot  America.  The  training  which  fitted  that  people  to  be 
a  nation,  and  necessitated  their  independence  as  soon  as 
their  right  of  local  self-government  was  assailed,  is  a  study 
m  political  philosophy  which  more  and  more  attracts  the 
publicists  and  statesmen  of  Europe.  Thirty  years  ago, 
Alexis  de  Tocqueville  advised  his  countrymen  to  look&to 
America,  not  in  order  to  make  a  servile  copy  of  the  insti¬ 
tutions  which  she  has  established,  but  to  gain  a  clearer 
view  of  the  polity  which  would  be  best  for  France ;  to  look 
to  America  less  to  find  examples  than  instruction  ;  to  bor¬ 
row  from  her  the  principles,  rather  than  the  details,  of  her 
laws, -those  principles  of  order,  of  the  balance  of  powers, 
ot  true  liberty,  of  deep  and  sincere  respect  for  right 
on  which  the  American  Constitution  rests.1  Prof,  von 
Holst  of  the  University  of  Freiburg,  having  spent  five 
^ears  m  the  United  States  in  the  diligent  study  of  their 
po  itical  history  and  institutions,  is  now  seeking  to  promote 
tliat  study  m  Germany,  where  correct  and  philosophical 

aT/m Am(?rican  s°ciety  is  so  sadly  wanting.* 

,  1  TT  Ilf‘  Gladstone  has  lately  said  of  the  independence  of 
le  United  States  of  America,3  “  The  circumstances  of  the 
war  which  yielded  that  result,  the  principles  it  illustrates, 
and  the  remarkable  powers  of  the  principal  men  who  took 
part,  whether  as  soldiers  or  citizens,  in  the  strimoffi 
constitute  one  of  the  most  instructive  chapters  of  modern 
history;  and  I  have  repeatedly  recommended  them  to 
younger  men  as  subjects  of  especial  study.” 

2  £?I?0CraCy  iu  America,  Preface  to  twelfth  edition.  1S48 

von  Dr.  DuTeldoTlWa  Vereinl*te“  Staaten  Amerika, 

Reply  to  invitation  to  the  Lexington  centenary. 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  13 


A  leading  journal  of  London,  having  no  partiality  for 
the  United  States,  also  says,  44  The  Revolution  which  gave 
birth  to  the  United  States,  in  some  respects  may  be  re¬ 
garded,  even  more  than  the  French  Revolution,  as  the 
starting-point  of  modern  history.  It  was  the  hist  example 
of  a  nation  completely  breaking  loose  from  its  position  as 
part  of  the  old  historic  world  of  Christendom,  starting  for 
itself  on  entirely  new  ground,  and  trusting  to  its  inherent 
power  of  organization.  .  .  .  We  have  lived  thenceforth  in 
a  larger  sphere,  physically,  socially,  and  politically. 

Now,  the  American  Revolution  could  never  have  at¬ 
tained  to  this  dignity  and  power,  nor  have  so  commanded 
the  respect  of  statesmen  and  philosophers  for  its  benefits  to 
mankind,  had  it  been  only  or  chiefly  a  revolt  against  the 
payment  of  a  tax.  It  is  true  that  the  Stamp  Act  and 
other  oppressive  impositions  were  the  occasion  of  lousing 
in  the  American  Colonies  the  spirit  of  resistance  to  the 
authority  of  Great  Britain:  yet  it  was  not  the  tax  as 
money,  but  the  mode  of  levying  the  tax,  that  they  resisted  ; 
it  was  not  the  pocket  that  was  touched,  but  the  piincip  e, 
by  whose  authority  the  pocket  should  be  opened. 

44  The  Saturday  Review  ”  speaks  of  the  American  Revo¬ 
lution  as  a  44  wanton  and  needless  rebellion  :  ”  44  needless,’  — 
that  is,  without  basis  or  plea  of  necessity  to  justify  it; 
44  wanton,”  —  that  is,  reckless,  without  reason  or  motive, 
without  regard  to  right,  to  methods,  or  to  consequences. 
I  quote  this  characterization  of  one  of  the  greatest  politi¬ 
cal  and  moral  events  of  modern  history  simply  to  raise 
the  question,  whether  there  exists  in  England  a  class  ot 
persons  of  sufficient  intelligence  to  read  4b  The  Saturday 
Review,”  and  yet  of  sufficient  stupidity  to  be  imposed 
upon  by  such  flippant  phrases.1 2  To  44  The  Westminster 
Review,”  however,  one  looks  for  candor,  intelligence,  and 
a  fair  decree  of  sound  and  accurate  knowledge  of  the 
subjects  of  which  it  treats.  Yet  even  44  The  Westminster 
is  betrayed  into  a  strange  misapprehension  of  the  issue 
between  the  Colonies  and  the  mother-country.  44  It  has 
been  well  pointed  out,”  says  this  review,  44  that  the  prin¬ 
ciple  involved  in  the  war  of  independence  was  scarcely 


1  London  Times,  May  5,  1S75. 

2  Notice  of  the  Life  of  Alexander  Hamilton,  May  27,  lbU>. 


14  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


whether  taxation  was  only  just  where  representation  had 
been  conceded,  but  whether  the  two  hundred  and  forty 
million  pounds  sterling  which  had  been  spent  by  England 
in  defence  of  her  American  Colonies  from  the  French  in¬ 
vasions  from  Canada  should  not,  in  some  measure,  be 
borne  by  the  Colonies  in  whose  interest  the  war  had  been 
undertaken,  and  for  whose  benefit  the  struggle  had  been 
prosecuted  to  a  successful  issue.”  1 

Had  the  writer  taken  pains  to  consult  the  journals  of 
the  House  of  Commons,  and  especially  the  journal  of 
Franklin’s  examination  before  the  House,  or  the  speeches 
of  Burke,  he  could  not  have  fallen  into  so  mischievous  an 
error.  Of  Franklin’s  testimony  I  shall  speak  by  and  by. 
But  here  is  the  official  record  of  the  House  of  Commons  : 
On  the  28th  January,  1756,  a  message  was  received  from 
the  king,  that  u  His  Majesty,  being  sensible  of  the  zeal  and 
vigor  with  which  his  faithful  subjects  of  certain  Colonies 
in  North  America  have  exerted  themselves  in  defence  of 
his  Majesty’s  just  rights  and  possessions,  recommends  it  to 
this  House  to  take  the  same  into  their  consideration,  and 
to  enable  his  Majesty  to  give  them  such  assistance  as  may 
be  a  proper  reward  and  encouragement.”  On  the  Bel  Feb¬ 
ruary  following,  the  House  voted  one  hundred  and  fifteen 
thousand  pounds  as  a  recompense  to  the  Colonies,  in  almost 
the  words  of  the  royal  message.  This  was  in  the  second 
year  after  the  outbreak  of  the  so-called  u  French  and 
Indian  ”  or  “  Old  French  ”  war.  This  wvir  continued  for 
nine  years,  and  was  at  last  terminated  by  the  Treaty  of 
Paris,  Feb.  10,  1768.  Now,  in  each  and  every  year  of  that 
war,  the  journal  of  the  House  of  Commons  bears  witness, 
that,  on  recommendation  of  the  crown,  the  House  made 
an  appropriation  to  reimburse  the  Colonies  for  their  excess 
of  outlay  in  a  war  that  was  not  simply  in  their  own 
defence,  but  for  the  rights  of  the  crown  in  America.2 

The  Colonies  did  not  begin  the  French  war.  The  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  boundary  of  Nova  Scotia  did  not  directly 
concern  them ;  and  the  forts  built  by  the  French  in  the 


1  Our  Colonial  Empire:  Westminster  Review,  April,  1870. 

-  See  Journal,  vol.  xxvii.,  28tli  January  and  3d  February, 
and  l'Jth  May,  1757;  vol.  xxviii.,  June  1,  1758,  April  26th  and 
March  20tli  and  31st,  April  28,  1700,  Jan.  Cth  and  20th,  1701; 
Jan.  22 d  and  20tli,  1702,  March  14tli  and  17th,  1703. 


1750,  10th 
30  th,  1750, 
vol.  xxix., 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  15 

valley  of  the  Mississippi,  though,  they  might  eventually 
menace  the  Colonies,  did  not  encroach  upon  the  actual  set¬ 
tlements,  hut  upon  territory  claimed  by  Great  Britain. 
The  king's  speech  at  the  opening  of  Parliament,  Nov.  13, 
1755,  recognizing  the  state  of  war,  said,  “Since  your  last 
session,  I  have  taken  such  measures  as  might  be  conducive 
to  the  protection  of  our  possessions  in  America,  and  to  the 
regaining  of  such  posts  thereof  as  had  been  encroached 
upon  or  invaded,  in  violation  of  the  peace,  and  contrary  to 
the ‘faith  of  the  most  solemn  treaties.”  1 

In  November,  1754,  in  the  debate  on  the  Address  on 
the  King’s  Speech,  Mr.  W.  Beckford,  M.P.,  said,  u  If  we 
attack  the  French  anywhere  by  land,  let  it  be  in  America, 
where  we  are  sure  of  the  utmost  assistance  our  Colonies 
can  give,  without  subsidy  or  reward  ;  for  though  we  have 
for  several  years  treated  them  in  such  a  manner  that  they 
have  some  reason  to  be  indifferent  whose  power  they  may 
hereafter  fall  under,  yet  I  am  sure  they  will  all  join  heartily 
with  us  in  driving  the  French  as  far  as  possible  from  their 
confines.”  2  And  the  senior  Horace  Walpole,  who  bore  us 
no  sympathy,  said,  “  I  was  glad  to  hear  that  our  Colonies 
were  able  to  support  themselves.  I  therefore  hope  they 
will  not  stand  in  need  of  much  assistance  from  us  ;  but,  if 
they  should,  we  must  give  it.  Even  for  them  we  must 
fight  as  if  we  were  fighting  pro  aris  et  focis ;  for  it  is 
to  them  we  owe  our  wealth  and  our  naval  strength.”  3 
Surely,  then,  the  Colonies  were  under  no  so  great  obliga¬ 
tion  to  the  mother-country  for  “protection.” 

In  April,  1759,  his  Majesty  “recommends  to  the  consider¬ 
ation  of  the  House  the  zeal  and  vigor  with  which  his  faith¬ 
ful  subjects  of  North  America  had  exerted  themselves  in 
defence  of  his  just  rights  and  possessions ;  desiring  he 
might  be  enabled  to  give  them  a  proper  compensation  for 
the  expenses  incurred  by  the  respective  provinces  in  lev}- 
ing,  clothing,  and  paying  the  troops  raised  in  that  country, 
according  as  the  active  vigor  and  strenuous  efforts  of  the 
several  Colonies  should  appear  to  merit.”4  And  the  jour¬ 
nal  records  an  appropriation  of  £200,000  as  a  “proper 
compensation  to  the  Provinces  for  the  expenses  incurred 

1  Hansard,  xv.  527.  2  Ibid.,  xv.  358.  8  Ibid.,  xv.  3G5. 

4  See  in  Hansard,  vol.  xv.  p. 


10  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

in  levying  and  maintaining  troops  for  tlie  service  of  the 
public.”  1 

On  the  28tli  April,  1T59,  the  House  made  a  special 
appropriation  of  £ 2,977  “for  reimbursing  to  the  Colony 
of  New  York  their  expenses  in  furnishing  provisions  and 
stores  to  the  troops  raised  by  them  for  his  Majesty’s  ser¬ 
vice  for  the  campaign  in  1756.” 

In  1760,  on  the  31st  March,  in  the  vote  of  supplies  as 
given  by  Hansard,  is  this  peculiar  form  :  “  Upon  account, 
to  enable  his  Majesty  to  give  proper  compensations  to  the 
Provinces  in  North  America  for  the  expenses  they  had 
incurred  in  levying,  clothing,  and  paying  the  troops  raised 
by  them,  according  as  the  active  vigor  and  strenuous  efforts 
of  the  respective  Provinces  shall  be  thought  by  his  Majesty 
to  merit.”  The  sum  granted  was  £  200,000.  Thus  far 
under  George  II.  George  III.  came  to  the  throne  Oct. 
23,1760;  and  the  journal  bears  witness,  in  the  same 
terms  as  above  quoted,  that  on  Jan.  20,  1761,  £200,000, 
on  Jan.  25, 1762,  £133,333.  6s.  8(7.,  and  on  March  17, 1763, 
a  like  sum,  were  voted  as  a  compensation  to  tlie  Colonies.2 

Burke  called  attention  to  these  facts  in  his  famous 
speech  on  Conciliation  with  America,  and  said  with  just 
emphasis,  “The  Colonies,  in  general,  owe  little  or  noth¬ 
ing  to  any  care  of  ours.”  In  a  speech  in  the  Massachu¬ 
setts  legislature,  Sept.  8,  1762,  James  Otis  said,  “This 
Province  has,  since  the  year  1754,  levied  for  his  Majesty’s 
service,  as  soldiers  and  seamen,  near  thirty  thousand  men. 
One  year  in  particular,  it  was  said  that  every  fifth  man 
was  engaged  in  one  shape  or  another.  We  have  raised 
sums  for  the  support  of  this  war  that  the  last  generation 
could  hardly  have  formed  any  idea  of.”  Such  were  the 
facts.  “  The  Westminster  Review”  says,  “  The  question 
was,  whether  the  cost  of  defending  the  Colonies  from  the 
French  should  not  be  borne  by  the  Colonies.”  The  King 
and  Parliament,  on  the  contrary,  year  by  year,  recognized 
the  fact  that  the  Colonies  had  freely  borne  the  cost  of  levy¬ 
ing  and  paying  troops  to  serve  against  the  French,  and 
had  so  far  exceeded  their  fair  proportion  of  this  expense 
as  to  deserve  compensation  from  the  royal  treasury.  “  The 


1  See  in  Hansard,  vol.  xv.  p.  937. 

2  Ibid.,  vol.  xv.  pp.  1003,  1214,  seq. 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  17 

Westminster  Review  ”  says  that  the  war  was  undertaken 
for  the  interest  of  the  Colonies.”  But  the  King  and  Parlia¬ 
ment  felt  that  the  Colonies  were  assisting  England  in  her 
war  .with  France ;  were  fighting  for  “  the  service  of  the 
public,”  and  “  in  defence  of  his  Majesty’s  just  rights  and 
possessions.”  Surely  money  voted  in  gratitude  as  a  “  com¬ 
pensation”  and  “reward”  for  zealous  and  vigorous  volun¬ 
tary  services  and  sacrifices  on  the  part  of  the  Colonies 
could  not  afterward  be  made  a  ground  of  taxing  the  Colo¬ 
nies  for  expenses  incurred  in  their  defence.  The  fact  was, 
that  the  resources  displayed  by  the  Colonies  in  their  own 
defence  excited  the  envy  and  cupidity  of  a  later  ministry ; 
and,  when  the  fear  of  France  was  removed,  it  was  felt  that 
pressure  could  safely  be  applied  to  the  Colonies  for  extort¬ 
ing  a  revenue  for  the  crown.  Hitherto  the  Colonies  had 
made  grants  to  the  crown  through  their  own  legislatures : 
now  they  were  to  be  directly  taxed  by  Parliament.  This 
was  expressly  declared  in  the  preamble  to  the  act  levying 
a  duty  on  tea ;  and  Burke  pithily  said,  u  It  is  the  weight 
of  that  preamble ,  and  not  the  weight  of  the  duty,  that 
Americans  are  unable  and  unwilling  to  bear.”  This  it 
was  that  led  Otis  to  assert  it  as  a  right  of  the  British 
Colonies,  that  “  taxes  are  not  to  be  laid  on  the  people,  but 
by  their  consent  in  person,  or  by  deputation.” 1 

I  have  dwelt  thus  long  upon  this  point,  first,  because  of 
the  respectable  character  of  the  review  that  has  been  be¬ 
trayed  into  this  singular  error;  and,  next,  because  I  see 
not  how  it  is  possible  for  Englishmen  to  be  correctly  in¬ 
formed  concerning  this  important  period  not  only  of 
American  history,  but  of  their  own,  so  long  as  the  record  of 
the  doings  of  their  own  government  is  kept  from  view, 
and  quite  another  version  of  the  facts  is  given  by  journals 
in  which  they  are  accustomed,  and  ordinarily  with  good 
reason,  to  confide. 

“  What  do  we  mean  by  the  American  Revolution  ?  ” 
asks  John  Adams.  “Do  we  mean  the  American  war? 
The  Revolution  was  effected  before  the  war  commenced. 
The  Revolution  was  in  the  minds  and  hearts  of  the  people, 

1  See  pamphlet  on  the  Rights  of  the  British  Colonies  Asserted  and 
Proveil  ;  lirst  read  by  Otis  to  the  Massachusetts  legislature,  then  pub¬ 
lished  by  him  in  1764. 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

—  a  change  in  their  religious  sentiments  of  their  duties  and 
obligations.  .  .  .  Believing  allegiance  and  protection  to  be 
reciprocal,  when  protection  was  withdrawn  they  thought 
allegiance  was  dissolved.”  1  The  American  Colonies  had 
no  quarrel  with  the  English  nation,  of  which  they  were 
proud  to  be  a  part.  The  British  ministry  had  itself  to 
thank  for  American  independence.  The  English  people 
have  America  to  thank  for  the  conservation  of  their  own 
popular  and  local  freedom,  and  for  their  present  colonial 
policy.  Parliament  now  seeks  to  force  upon  the  Colonies 
that  self-administration  for  which  we  fought. 

The  colonists  had  taxed  themselves  freely,  largely;  had 
maintained  their  government,  their  schools,  their  colleges, 
their  churches,  at  their  own  cost,  without  grants  from  the 
royal  treasury;2  had  taxed  themselves  to  equip  a  militia; 
and  at  their  own  charges  had  fought  with  and  for  England 
against  Spain,  France,  and  the  Indians :  but  the  attempt 
to  tax  them  directly  from  England,  thus  over-riding  the 
local  legislatures,  and  ignoring  the  settled  principle  of  tax¬ 
ation  in  the  English  Constitution,  they  resisted  in  the  very 
spirit  in  which  the  English  Commons  had  once  and  again 
stood  out  against  the  usurpations  of  the  crown.  They 
were  not  mercenary,  nor  niggard ;  the  necessities  of  the 
primitive  colonists  had  left  the  impress  of  frugality  upon 
the  habits  of  the  people  :  but  when,  to  cover  the  deficien¬ 
cies  of  his  budget,  the  British  king  sought  to  convert 
their  thriftiness  into  a  source  of  revenue  to  the  crown, 
their  notion  of  money  and  its  uses  showed  itself  in  the  say¬ 
ing,  44  Millions  for  defence,  but  not  one  cent  for  tribute.” 
The  king  was  encroaching  upon  the  rights  and  liberties 
which  their  fathers  had  brought  from  England,  and  which 
they  themselves  had  always  enjoyed  either  by  charter  or 
by  custom :  he  was  subverting  the  people’s  prerogative  of 
local  government.  At  some  point  they  must  make  a  stand, 
and  it  might  as  well  be  at  the  stamp-tax  or  the  tea-tax  as 
at  any  other  act  of  usurpation. 

44  Who  steals  my  purse  steals  trash.”  Yes,  but  he  is 
none  the  less  a  thief ;  and  he  who  steals  my  purse  would 

1  Works,  vol.  X.  282,  283. 

2  With  the  exception  of  Georgia,  'whose  civil  list  was  a  small  party-tax 
on  Parliament. 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION. 


“filch  from  me  my  good  name,”  and  might  even  take  my 
life  to  steal  my  purse.  This  royal  robber  of  rights,  if  un¬ 
resisted,,  would  soon  have  taken  all;  and  the  moral  of  the 
resistance  is  not  dwarfed  by  its  being  made  when  he  laid 
violent  hands  upon  the  purse.  Man  has  a  right  in  his  own 
property,  just  as  he  has  a  right  in  his  life,  in  his  home,  in 
his  intelligence,  in  his  conscience ;  and  when  either  of 
these  rights  is  arbitrarily  seized,  or  stealthily  encroached 
upon,  he  must  strike  for  this,  or  he  will  lose  the  whole. 
And  Schilier  has  taught  us  that  “no  one  can  surrender  a 
hair’s-breadth  of  his  own  rights,  without  at  the  same  time 
betraying  the  soul  of  the  whole  State ;  ”  and  “  chains, 
whether  of  steel  or  silk,  are  chains.”  1 

I  grant,  indeed,  that  one  watchword  of  the  Revolution 
—  “  No  taxation  without  representation  ”  —  has  a  metallic 
sound,  —  a  sound  less  noble  than  the  demand  of  the  people 
in  Germany  to  be  represented  in  the  government,  because 
every  man  may  be  called,  at  any  time,  to  give  his  life  for 
his  fatherland.  But  the  philosophical  view  that  Mr. 
Burke  took  of  the  resistance  of  the  colonists  to  the  Stamp 
Act  relieves  them  of  the  semblance  of  rating  money  above 
life  in  a  contest  for  the  right  of  the  people  to  a  parliament 
of  their  own.  “Liberty,”  said  Burke,  “inheres  in  some 
sensible  object ;  and  every  nation  has  formed  to  itself 
some  favorite  point,  which,  by  way  of  eminence,  becomes 
the  criterion  of  its  happiness.  It  happened  that  the  great 
contests  for  freedom  in  this  country  were,  from  the  earliest 
times,  chiefly  upon  the  question  of  taxing.  Most  of  the 
contests  in  the  ancient  commonwealths  turned  primarily 
on  the  right  of  election  of  magistrates,  or  on  the  balance 
among  the  several  orders  of  the  State.  The  question  of 
money  was  not  with  them  so  immediate.  But  in  England 
it  was  otherwise.  On  this  point  of  taxes  the  ablest  pens 
and  most  eloquent  tongues  have  been  exercised;  the 
greatest  spirits  have  acted  and  suffered.  .  .  .  They  took 
infinite  pains  to  inculcate  as  a  fundamental  principle,  that, 
in  all  monarchies,  the  people  must,  in  effect,  themselves 
mediately  or  immediately  possess  the  power  of  granting 
their  own  money,  or  no  shadow  of  liberty  could  subsist.” 2 

1  Die  Verschworung  des  Fiesco  zu  Genua,  iv.  G  and  iii.  5. 

2  Speech  on  Conciliation  with  America. 


20 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


It  was  on  this  fundamental  principle  that  John  Hampden 
planted  himself  when  he  refused  to  pay  the  trifling  sum 
in  which  he  was  assessed  for  “  ship-money.”  To  one  of 
Hampden’s  station  and  fortune  a  rate  of  thirty-one  shil¬ 
lings  and  sixpence  was  ridiculously  small :  but  the  rate 
had  been  levied  by  the  king  without  the  authority  of  Par¬ 
liament,  and  was  enforced  by  distraint  of  goods  and  per¬ 
sons  ;  and  so  Hampden  refused  to  pay  his  thirty-one  shil¬ 
lings  and  sixpence,  took  his  appeal  to  the  law  against  the 
crown,  roused  the  country  to  resistance  to  arbitrary  taxa¬ 
tion,  and  finally  established  the  entire  and  undisputed  con¬ 
trol  of  Parliament  over  the  supplies,  which  his  biographer 
characterizes  as  “  the  stoutest  buttress  ol  the  English  Con¬ 
stitution.”  1 

The  mind  of  Luther  had  long  been  struggling  toward 
the  light :  his  heart,  distracted  with  its  own  conflicts,  had 
seized  the  promise,  “  The  just  shall  live  by  faith.”  His  visit 
to  Rome  had  been  a  fearful  shock  to  his  ideal  of  the  glory 
and  sanctity  of  the  Church  in  her  capital ;  but  so  long  as 
his  experiences  were  purely  subjective,  and  his  meditations 
speculative,  though  he  might  be  preparing  to  follow  his 
beloved  Augustine  and  Tauler  as  theologian  and  preacher, 
he  had  not  felt  the  impulses  of  the  popular  reformer,  nor 
thought  of  projecting  the  inner  conflict  of  his  soul  into  the 
outer  sphere  of  conflict  and  revolt  against  the  Church  of 
Rome.  It  was  the  concrete,  tangible  fact  of  the  open  sale 
of  indulgences,  the  traffic  of  the  Church  in  sins  and 
pardons,  that  roused  Luther  first  to  protest  and  remon¬ 
strance,  and  then  to  defiance  and  independence  ;  and  it 
was  this  attempt  of  the  Italian  hierarchy  to  extort  from 
the  Germans  money  for  St.  Peter’s  by  hawking  their  souls 
that  gave  Luther  power  with  the  people  against  the  Pope. 
His  revival  of  the  doctrine  of  “justification  by  faith  ” 
might  have  caused  a  controversy  in  the  schools  ;  but  this 
mercenary  greed  of  Rome  roused  a  nation  to  assert  its 
independence  of  the  Papal  power.  Faith  and  freedom, 
stirring  in  thousands  of  hearts,  and  latent  in  thousands 
more,  found  an-outlet  in  resistance  to  this  “  Stamp  Act  ” 
of  Leo  X.,  by  which  that  most  precious  of  all  things,  the 
redemption  of  the  soul,  was  to  be  had  by  buying  a  strip 

1  Memorials  of  John  Hampden,  by  Lord  Nugent. 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  21 

of  paper  bearing  a  remission  stamped  with  the  pontiff’s 
name.  The  act  of  George  III.  required  that  all  deeds 
and  receipts  and  other  legal  documents  should  be  writ¬ 
ten  or  printed  on  stamped  paper,  and  that  this  paper 
should  be  sold  by  the  tax-collectors ;  ”  and  we  have  the 
authority  of  Erasmus,  that  u  the  remission  of  purgatorial 
torment  was  not  only  sold,  but  forced  upon  those  who 
refused  it.”  1 

We  are  not,  then,  to  judge  a  great  movement  simply  b}r 
the  watchwords  of  the  hour :  these  catch  the  ear  of  the 
people,  and  rouse  their  passions  for  the  conflict ;  they  put 
in  concrete  form  some  vital  fact  or  principle,  commonly 
overstated  in  the  heat  of  controversy  or  the  intensified 
language  of  proverb.  But,  if  the  movement  is  really  great 
and  lasting,  it  will  be  found  that  back  of  it  lie  a  history 
and  a  philosophy  that  reach  to  the  profoundest  sources  of 
human  action.  Hence,  as  Ranke  argues,  it  was  not  a  for¬ 
tuitous  circumstance  that  the  Reformation  was,  in  the  first 
instance,  an  attack  upon  the  abuses  practised  in  the  matter 
of  indulgences.  The  conversion  into  an  outward  traffic  of 
that  which  was  most  essentially  a  concern  of  the  inward 
man  was  of  all  things  the  most  diametrically  opposite  to 
the  conceptions  drawn  from  the  profoundest  German 
theology.  Hence  nothing  could  be  more  shocking  and 
repulsive  than  the  system  of  indulgences  to  a  man  like 
Luther,  with  a  deep  and  lively  sense  of  religion,  filled  with 
the  notions  of  sin  and  justification  as  they  had  been 
expressed  in  books  of  German  theology  before  his  time, 
and  strengthened  in  these  views  by  the  Scriptures,  which 
he  had  drunk  in  with  a  thirsty  heart.2  As  the  springs  of 
the  German  Reformation  lay  deeper  than  resistance  to 
the  sale  of  indulgences,  so  the  springs  of  the  American 
Revolution  lay  deeper  than  resistance  to  arbitrary  taxa¬ 
tion  ;  and  as  in  Germany  there  were  reformers  before  the 
Reformation,  so  in  the  American  Colonies  there  were 
defenders  of  the  right  of  popular  government  long  before 
the  battle  of  Lexington  had  made  that  a  question  to  be 
decided  at  the  cannon’s  mouth. 

To  find  the  original  sources  of  the  American  Revolution, 

1  Pnef.  I.,  Epist.  Corinth.,  opera  vii.  851. 

2  Ranke’s  History  of  the  Pox>es:  Introduction,  chap.  ii. 


22  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

we  must  go  back  to  English  customs,  precedents,  and 
institutions  hoary  with  antiquity ;  must  go  back  beyond 
the  history  of  Saxons  and  Angles  upon  the  soil  of  Britain : 
and  those  who  are  wont  to  sneer  at  the  American  Republic 
as  a  thing  of  accident,  an  experiment  without  a  history, 
may  be  shamed,  if  not  edified,  by  the  teaching  of  history, 
that  the  tap-root  of  that  self-government  for  which  Amer¬ 
ica  revolted  against  Britain  was  in  that  primitive  local 
government  of  the  Teutonic  race,  which  for  long  was  lost 
in  Germany  through  the  usurpations  of  petty  princes; 
which,  however,  had  been  transplanted  to  England,  and 
there  thrived  under  more  favoring  conditions,  but  which 
had  well-nigh  been  lost  in  Britain  also,  had  not  the  Colo¬ 
nies,  with  an  offshoot  of  that  principle  invigorated  by  a 
virgin  soil,  startled  Britain  into  the  consciousness  of  her 
own  decaying  liberty  by  the  vital  force  of  theirs. 

The  colonists  did  not  resist  with  violence  a  taxation 
which  was  to  them  illegal ;  they  did  not  draw  blood  to 
save  money  :  with  a  steady,  united,  but  peaceable  front, 
they  opposed  one  extortion  after  another  as  an  encroach¬ 
ment  upon  their  right  of  local  government.  But,  when  a 
blow  was  struck  at  the  foundation  of  that  right,  they  took 
up  arms,  not  against  taxes,  but  against  tyranny.  On  the 
first  page  of  the  American  Revolution  it  is  written,  in  lines 
of  blood,  that  the  town-meeting  made  the  Revolution,  — 
made  it  in  self-defence,  for  its  own  right  of  existence. 

Now,  what  was  this  “town-meeting,”  that  dared  go  to 
war  with  a  kingdom?  —  this  little  democracy  of  New-Eng- 
land  yeomen,  that  on  the  19th  of  April,  1775,  drawn  up 
on  the  village  green  of  Lexington,  faced  twelve  times 
their  number  of  British  regulars,  and  took  and  gave  back 
their  fire?  It  was  the  old  Anglo-Saxon  “town-moo^,”  the 
open  assembly  of  the  freemen  of  the  village  or  the 
borough,  where  questions  of  local  government  were 
mooted,  — debated,  and  decided  by  vote.  Here  and  there 
in  England  is  still  pointed  out  a  “  moot-hill,”  —  the  hill  of 
meeting,  —  where  such  local  assemblies,  legislative  and  judi¬ 
cial,  were  held  in  the  open  air.  And  what  was  this  Anglo- 
Saxon  “  town-moot  ”  but  that  free  assembly  of  the  people 
for  choosing  their  rulers,  and  making  and  executing  their 
laws,  which  Tacitus  describes  as  the  political  constitution 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  23 

of  the  Teutonic  race?  “The  Germans,”  says  Tacitus, 
“  choose  their  kings  on  account  of  their  nobility,  their 
leaders  on  account  of  their  valor.  On  smaller  matters  the 
chiefs  debate,  on  greater  matters  all  men,  but  so  that 
those  things  whose  final  decision  rests  with  the  whole 
people  are  first  handled  by  the  chiefs.  ...  It  is  lawful 
also  in  the  assembly  to  bring  matters  for  trial,  and  to  bring 
charges  of  capital  crimes.  ...  In  the  same  assembly, 
chiefs  are  chosen  to  administer  justice  through  the  dis¬ 
tricts  and  villages.”1  This  principle  of  governing  directly 
by  the  whole  body  of  freemen  in  council  assembled,  the 
Teutonic  constitution  carried  out  to  the  farthest  practicable 
subdivision  of  the  body  politic ;  viz.,  the  Landesgemeinde . 
Concerning  this  seat  of  local  sovereignty,  a  modern  Eng¬ 
lish  publicist  has  observed,  that,  “in  this  earliest  stage  of 
Teutonic  society,  we  find  self-government  in  its  most  abso¬ 
lute  and  most  uncompromising  form.  The  Greek  ideal  of 
a  perfectly  free  State,  of  every  citizen  of  which  it  can  be 
said  that  he  governs  and  is  governed,  —  apysiv  aal  apizoOca, 
—  is  realized.  Society  and  the  State  are  exactly  contermi¬ 
nous  with  each  other:  neither  overlaps  the  other.  Social 
rights  are  exactly  balanced  by  public  duties,  public  duties 
by  social  rights.  The  franchise  of  the  old  Teutonic  com¬ 
munity  is  the  amount  of  public  work  done  on  behalf  of  the 
community.  In  a  political  society  of  this  kind,  it  is  clear 
that  there  is  no  room  for  even  a  rudiment  of  representative 
government.  Society  itself  does  the  work  of  the  State,  and 
does  not  delegate  it  to  others.” 2  Upon  this  political  unit  — 
“  the  true  kernel,”  as  Mr.  Freeman  calls  it,  “  of  all  our  politi¬ 
cal  life”  — was  formed  in  the  Teutonic  constitution  a  repre¬ 
sentative  system  through  a  series  of  delegated  assemblies ; 
and  the  primitive  political  structure  of  England  was  formed 
in  this  manner,  not  bv  division  from  above  downwards, 
but  by  union  and  growth  from  beneath  upwards.  In 
short,  the  fundamental  conception  of  the  State  was  society 
exercising  its  political  functions,  or  local  government,  — 
that  which  Pres.  Lincoln,  in  his  home-bred  philosophy, 
styled  “  the  government  of  the  people,  by  the  people,  and 

1  Tacitus  <le  Moribus  Germanise,  c.  7-13.  See  also  Freeman’s  Growth 
of  the  English  Constitution,  chap.  i. 

2  R.  B.  D.  Morier:  Cobden-Club  Essays,  third  series,  p.  305. 


24  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

for  the  people.”1  This  was  town-meeting  government; 
for  in  the  town-meeting  every  freeman  had  not  only  his 
vote,  hut  his  word ;  and  to  many  a  man  to  have  his  say,  or, 
as  my  good  mother  used  to  phrase  it,  to  give  a  piece  of  his 
mind,  is  a  far  higher  privilege  than  to  elect  others  to 
office,  or  even  to  be  elected  himself.  The  New-England 
town-meeting  had  retained  intact  and  untarnished  the 
three  essential  rights  of  the  Landesgememde  of  our  Teu¬ 
tonic  ancestors,  —  to  talk,  to  vote,  and,  when  meddled  with, 
to  fight.  But  the  great  glory  of  the  American  colonists 
is,  that,  while  they  recovered  to  political'  society  that 
primitive  institution  of  local  government  —  the  village 
council  —  which  was  the  common  heritage  of  the  Aryan 
race  in  its  wide  dispersion,  they  showed  how,  without 
sacrificing  any  of  the  essentials  of  liberty,  this  simple 
democracy  of  Nature,  the  source  and  the  last  refuge  of 
true  popular  liberty,  could  be  made  to  harmonize  with,  and 
even  give  stability  to,  that  grand  creation  of  modern  civil¬ 
ization,  —  the  nation  with  its  oneness  of  interests  and 
powers,  its  common  consciousness,  and  its  continuity  of 
historical  development.  This  was  the  rich  and  weighty 
contribution  of  the  American  Revolution  to  political 
science  and  the  welfare  of  mankind. 

The  first  tendency  of  civilization  is  in  the  direction  of 
an  apostasy  from  liberty.  In  every  union  for  common 
ends,  each  individual  must  surrender  somewhat  of  the 
personal  to  the  good  of  the  whole.  Now,  civilization  calls 
for  union,  for  the  combination  of .  interests  through  the 
concession  of  particulars.  Civilization  calls  also  for 
strength,  in  order  to  its  own  development  and  stability, 
and,  it  may  be,  strength  for  the  protection  of  liberty 
itself.  But  there  is  danger  always  that  this  combination 
shall  result  in  the  absorption  of  the  individual,  this  strength 
be  perverted  to  the  subverting  of  liberty.  In  Germany 
this  process  was  insidious  and  gradual :  first,  the  kingship 
grew  from  a  personal  superiority  in  honor  to  an  official 
supremacy  of  power ;  next,  the  chief  servants  of  the  king 
grow  to  be  great  territorial  lords,  and,  as  princes,  usurped 
to  themselves  local  possession  and  rule;  then  followed 
hereditary  estates,  crystallizing  society  into  castes.  Cities 

1  Speech  at  Gettysburg,  Nov.  19,  1863. 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  25 

and  leagues  preserved  the  old  principle  of  self-gov¬ 
ernment  and  association ;  and  the  Hundred  Court  long 
survived  as  the  unit  of  Teutonic  freedom.  The  Thirty- 
Years’  war  swept  away  the  ancient  landmarks ;  and  from 
that  flood  emerged  the  organized  absolutism  that  stood  for 
government,  and  the  privileged  classes  that  constituted 
the  State.  In  England,  happily,  the  transition  from  the 
old  Anglo-Saxon  forms,  with  their  local  political  units,  to 
the  consolidated  unity  of  the  kingdom  after  the  Norman 
conquest,  was  accomplished  without  the  annihilation  of 
local  self-government;  and  this  survived  in  charters  and 
franchises  held  by  boroughs,  municipalities,  and  trade- 
guilds.  Moreover,  under  the  new  order  of  things,  by 
which  government  became  concentrated  in  and  around  the 
throne,  the  principle  of  popular  government  emerged  in 
the  House  of  Commons,  which  asserted  the  right  of  origi¬ 
nating  all  financial  measures,  and  of  voting  all  taxes  and 
supplies. 

These  two  principles,  then,  —  that  of  distributive  self- 
government,  and  that  of  taxation  only  with  consent  of  the 
taxed,  —  were  thoroughly  English.  As  far  back  as  the  reign 
of  Edward  III.,  in  the  fourteenth  century,  the  Commons 
scrupled  to  tax  their  constituents  without  their  consent, 
and  refused  also  to  grant  supplies  without  pledges  and 
concessions  from  the  king.  The  same  course  was  pursued 
under  Henry  IY. ;  and  the  Commons  also  appointed  treas¬ 
urers  of  their  own  to  see  that  the  supplies  voted  to  the 
king  were  used  in  a  proper  and  lawful  way.  More  than 
once,  the  Commons  made  a  stand  against  the  arbitrary 
demands  of  Henry  VIII.  with  regard  to  supplies  to  the 
crown.  The  greatly  increased  revenue  of  the  crown 
under  Elizabeth  was  due  to  the  free  grants  of  the  Com¬ 
mons  ;  and,  when  Charles  I.  attempted  to  revive  the  levy¬ 
ing  of  new  customs  and  imposts  by  royal  prerogative,  the 
Commons  made  that  memorable  stand  for  the  control  of 
the  public  purse  by  the  people,  through  their  representa¬ 
tives,  that  cost  the  wilful  king,  first  his  crown,  and  after¬ 
wards  his  head.  This  principle,  then  settled  in  England 
by  statute  forever,  —  that  the  branch  of  government  that 
most  directly  represents  the  people  shall  regulate  the 
taxes,  and  vote  the  supplies,  —  is  now  incorporated  with 


26  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

every  constitutional  government ;  and  thus  English  liberty 
has  become  a  precedent  and  standard  for  the  civilized 
world.  But  parliaments  are  not  always  mindful  of  the 
principles  and  precedents  from  which  their  own  rights  and 
powers  have  sprung ;  and  a  century  ago  it  happened  in 
England  that  a  capricious  and  wilful  king  found  a  minis¬ 
try  and  parliament  pliant  enough  to  use  the  right  of  tax¬ 
ing,  which  parliament  had  wrested  from  the  crown,  in  the 
unconstitutional  way  of  taxing  the  American  Colonies 
without  their  consent,  —  thus  dealing  a  blow  at  the  right 
of  local  government,  upon  which  rested  the  rights  of  the 
people  as  represented  in  the  House  of  Commons  itself ;  and 
that  was  the  blow  that  roused  the  colonists  to  the  danger 
of  losing  all  their  rights  as  Englishmen  by  acquiescing  in 
a  tax  levied  without  consulting  the  legislative  bodies 
chosen  by  themselves. 

During  the  long  period  of  remonstrance  that  pre¬ 
ceded  the  appeal  of  the  colonists  to  arms,  Franklin, 
whose  sagacity  as  a  statesman  equalled  his  wisdom  as 
a  philosopher,  was  in  England,  watching  for  the  interests 
of  the  Colonies  against  the  usurpations  of  the  Crown 
and  the  Parliament.  In  a  letter  to  Lord  Karnes,  dated 
London,  April  11,  1767,  Franklin  says,  “All  the  Colonies 
acknowledge  the  king  as  their  sovereign.  His  govern¬ 
ors  there  represent  his  person ;  laws  are  made  by  their 
assemblies,  or  little  parliaments,  with  the  governor’s  assent, 
subject  still  to  the  king’s  pleasure  to  affirm  or  annul 
them.  Suits  arising  in  the  Colonies,  and  between  Colony 
and  Colony,  are  determined  by  the  king  in  council.  In 
this  view  they  seem  so  many  separate  little  States,  subject 
to  the  same  prince.  The  sovereignty  of  the  king  is,  there¬ 
fore,  easily  understood.  But  nothing  is  more  common  here 
than  to  talk  of  the  sovereignty  of  Parliament,  and  the 
sovereignty  of  this  nation  over  the  Colonies,  —  a  kind  of 
sovereignty,  the  idea  of  which  is  not  so  clear ;  nor  does  it 
clearly  appear  on  what  foundation  it  is  established.”  1  And 
in  a  letter  to  a  person  unknown,  dated  London,  Jan.  6, 
1766,  Franklin  protested  against  taxing  the  Colonies  with¬ 
out  their  consent,  by  asking,  “  If  the  Parliament  has  a 
right  thus  to  take  from  us  a  penny  in  the  pound,  where  is 

1  Bigelow’s  Life  of  Franklin,  vol.  i.  p.  518. 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  27 

the  line  drawn  that  bounds  that  right  ?  and  what  shall 
hinder  their  calling,  whenever  they  please,  for  the  other 
nineteen  shillings  and  elevenpence  ?  Have  we,  then,  any 
thing  that  we  can  call  our  own?  ”  1 

That  question  went  to  the  root  of  the  whole  matter  in 
controversy.  The  colonists  had  held  their  own  lands, 
made  their  own  laws,  elected  their  own  magistrates,  laid 
their  own  taxes,  levied  their  own  militia ;  but,  should  they 
acquiesce  in  these  new  usurpations  of  King  and  Parliament, 
how  long  should  they  have  any  thing  that  they  could  call 
their  own?  —  how  long,  indeed,  could  they  call  themselves 
their  own?  In  their  original  settlement,  and  forms  of 
government,  some  of  the  Colonies  had  been  more  their 
own  than  were  others.  As  I  have  already  pointed  out, 
some  had  charters  which  guaranteed  to  them  the  right  of 
framing  their  own  laws ;  some  had  proprietors,  who  held 
from  the  king  the  title  to  the  land,  and  the  right  of  gov¬ 
erning;  and  others,  again,  were  royal  provinces,  with  a 
governor  and  council  appointed  by  the  king.  It  had  long 
been  a  favorite  scheme  in  England  to  assimilate  all  the 
Colonies  to  the  “royal”  type.  But,  from  the  very  neces¬ 
sity  of  their  position,  the  colonists  were  left  to  care  for 
themselves,  and  hence  were  accustomed  to  act  for  them¬ 
selves  ;  and,  long  before  the  Revolution,  the  spirit  of  self- 
government  had  asserted  itself  in  all  the  Colonies,  through 
legislative  assemblies  chosen  by  the  people,  though  the 
forms  of  local  government  were  most  fully  developed  in 
the  chartered  Colonies  of  New  England.  There,  within  a 
quarter  of  a  century  after  the  settlement  of  Plymouth,  in 
a  population  of  about  twenty-five  thousand,  were  already 
upwards  of  fifty  distinct  town-organizations,  each  of  which, 
after  the  manner  of  the  Saxon  town-moot  and  the  Teu¬ 
tonic  G-emeinde,  managed  its  own  affairs  by  votes  of  the 
whole  body  of  citizens  in  town-meeting.  “  By  force  of 
this  institution,”  — as  it  exists  to  this  day,  —  “  every  man 
in  New  England  belongs  to  a  small  community  of  neigh¬ 
bors,  known  to  the  law  as  a  corporation,  with  rights  and 
liabilities  as  such,  capable  of  suing,  and  subject  to  be  sued, 
in  the  courts  of  justice,  in  disputes  with  any  parties,  in¬ 
dividual  or  corporate.  Once  a  year  the  corporation  chooses 

1  Bigelow’s  Life  of  Franklin,  vol.  i.  p.  455. 


28  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

tlie  administrators  of  its  affairs,  and  determines  the  amount 
of  money  with  which  it  will  intrust  them,  and  how  this 
shall  he  raised.  ...  It  belongs  to  the  towns  to  protect  the 
public  health  and  order  by  means  of  a  police  ;  to  maintain 
safe  and  convenient  communication  about  and  through 
their  precinct  by  roads  and  bridges ;  to  furnish  food, 
clothing,  and  shelter  to  their  poor;  to  provide  for  the 
education  of  all  their  children  at  their  common  charge  ;  ” 
in  a  word,  “  towns  severally  are  empowered  to  take  care 
of  those  interests  of  theirs  which  they  respectively  can 
best  understand,  and  can  most  efficiently  and  most 
economically  provide  for.”  1 

These  little  democracies  were  not  only  the  nurseries  of 
liberty,  but  training-schools  for  the  citizen  in  the  art  of 
government;  and  they  gave  to  New  England  her  peculiar 
strength  and  fitness  for  beginning  that  struggle  with  arbi¬ 
trary  power  which  led  to  the  war  of  independence.  Other 
Colonies  that  lacked  this  feature  in  their  original  constitu¬ 
tion  were  trained  to  self-government  by  the  hardy  man¬ 
hood  and  self-reliance  that  came  of  battling  with  the  wil¬ 
derness  and  the  Indians,  and  by  the  necessity  of  guarding 
their  frontier,  and  of  providing  for  needs  that  were  neg¬ 
lected  or  postponed  by  a  government  three  thousand  miles 
away.  Hence  the  oligarchy  which  at  first  existed  in  some 
of  the  Colonies  more  directly  dependent  upon  the  crown 
was  compelled  to  yield  to  the  demand  for  a  legislative 
assembly  chosen  by  the  people,  and  directly  cognizant  of 
their  wants ;  while  the  plan  for  an  order  of  nobility  — 
earls  and  barons  —  in  the  Carolinas  never  got  beyond  the 
paper  on  which  John  Locke  draughted  it  for  King  Charles 
II.  It  was  too  late  in  history  to  set  up  an  aristocracy  in 
fever-swamps  and  log-huts.  The  men  who  cleared  and  tilled 
the  soil  must  and  would  own  it,  and,  having  something  they 
could  call  their  own,  would  govern  it  as  well.  Even  the 
existence  of  negro  slavery  stimulated  this  demand  for 
colonial  freedom,  since,  by  a  perversity  of  human  nature, 
men  will  often  rate  their  own  political  liberty  above  the 
personal  liberty  of  their  fellows.  Mr.  Burke  pointed  out 
this  anomaly,  that  “  where  slaves  are  held  in  any  part  of 
the  world,  those  who  are  free  are  by  far  the  most  proud 

1  Palfrey’s  History  of  New  England,  book  ii.  chap.  1. 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  29 

and  jealous  of  their  freedom.  Freedom  is  to  them  not 
only  an  enjoyment,  hut  a  kind  of  rank  and  privilege.  .  .  . 
In  such  a  case  the  haughtiness  of  domination  combines 
with  the  spirit  of  freedom,  fortifies  it,  and  renders  it  invin¬ 
cible.”  And  this  sagacious  observer  recognized  the  fact, 
and  sought  to  have  Parliament  recognize  it  also,  that,  by 
one  cause  and  another,  it  had  come  to  pass,  that,  “  in  all  the 
Colonies,  the  governments  were  popular  in  a  high  degree  ; 
some  merely  popular ;  in  all,  the  popular  representative 
the  most  weighty ;  and  this  share  of  the  people  in  their 
ordinary  government  never  fails  to  inspire  them  with  lofty 
sentiments,  and  with  a  strong  aversion  from  whatever 
tends  to  deprive  them  of  their  chief  importance.”  1 

To  these  political  and  social  causes  which  developed 
in  the  colonists,  and  one  might  almost  say  necessitated, 
the  habit  of  self-government,  must  be  added  religion, 
as  demanding  freedom  of  conscience,  independence  of 
thought,  and'  the  recognition  of  Christian  manhood  as 
higher  than  all  forms  of  society,  and  orders  of  government. 
It  is  the  fashion  of  liberals  in  Europe  to  look  upon  the 
Church,  and  especially  the  clergy,  as  antagonistic  to  politi¬ 
cal  freedom,  and  an  obstacle  to  the  development  of  modern 
society  in  culture ;  and  it  is  the  fashion  of  conservatives 
in  Europe  to  look  upon  popular  freedom  as  hostile  to 
religion,  and  destructive  of  the  Church  as  a  main  bulwark 
of  society.  The  experience  of  France  before  and  after 
her  revolution  gave  color  to  both  these  views.  But  the 
experience  of  the  United  States  has  been,  that  freedom 
had  in  religion  a  safe  and  sure  ally ;  and  religion  found 
her  security  and  strength  in  freedom,  In  the  movements 
in  the  Colonies  that  prepared  the  way  for  the  Revolution, 
the  religious  spirit  was  a  vital  and  earnest  element.  Some 
of  the  Colonies  were  the  direct  offspring  of  religious  perse¬ 
cution  in  the  old  country,  or  of  the  desire  for  a  larger 
freedom  of  faith  and  worship ;  and  so  jealous  were  they 
of  any  interference  with  the  rights  of  conscience,  that 
their  religion  was  fitly  described  as  “  a  refinement  on  the 
principle  of  resistance,  the  dissidence  of  dissent,  and  the 
Protestantism  of  the  Protestant  religion.”2  And  the  Colo- 

1  Speech  on  Conciliation  with  America. 

2  Burke:  Speech  on  Conciliation. 


80 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


nies  that  were  founded  in  the  spirit  of  commercial  adven¬ 
ture,  or  for  extending  the  realm  of  Great  Britain,  became 
also  an  asylum  for  religious  refugees  from  all  nations,  and, 
by  the  prospect  of  a  larger  and  freer  religious  life,  attracted 
to  themselves  the  men  of  different  races  and  beliefs  who 
had  learned  to  do  and  to  suffer  for  their  faith.  There 
were  the  Hollanders  of  New  Amsterdam  (now  New  York), 
of  that  sturdy  race  that  shook  off  the  accursed  yoke  of 
Spain,  —  a  people  whose  boast  it  was  “  that  common  labor¬ 
ers,  even  the  fishermen  who  dwelt  in  the  huts  of  Friesland, 
could  read  and  write,  and  discuss  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture;’  1  there  were  the  Germans  of  Pennsylvania, 
vvho  brought  with  them  the  recent  memories  of  the  Thirty- 
\  ears’  war  for  the  freedom  of  the  faith ;  there  were  the 
Swedes  of  Delaware,  with  the  proud  memory  of  their  great 
Gustavus,  who  had  saved  Protestantism  to  Germany,  and 
consecrated  the  Deformation  with  his  blood ;  there  were 
the  PXuguenots  of  New  York  and  the  Carolinas,  who 
brought  from  France  the  life-blood  of  its  industry  and 
thrift,  of  its  honor  and  its  faith  ;  and  even  the  Catholic 
settlers  of  Maryland,  by  the  sagacity  of  their  leader  in 
procuring  a  chartered  freedom  for  their  own  faith,  had 
guaranteed  an  .  impartial  protection  to  other  forms  and 
faiths  than  theirs.  Not  only  in  New  England  itself,  but 
in  the  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  systems  south  of  New 
England,  the  Calvimstic  type  of  theology  largely  predomi¬ 
nated  ;  and,  say  what  men  will  of  the  harshness  of  Calvin¬ 
ism  in  some  aspects,  the  almost  arbitrary  despotism  that  it 
imputes  to  God  in  his  decrees  inspires  a  resolute,  almost 
defiant,  freedom  in  those  who  deem  themselves  the  subjects 
of  his  electing  grace :  in  all  things  they  are  “  more  than 
conquerors,”  through  the  confidence  that  nothing  shall  be 
able  to  separate  them  from  the  love  of  God.  No  doctrine 
of  the  dignity  of  human  nature,  of  the  rights  of  man,  of 
natural  liberty,  of  social  equality,  can  create  such  a  resolve 
for  the  freedom  of  the  soul  as  this  personal  conviction  of 
God’s  favoring  and  protecting  sovereignty.  He  who  has 
this  faith  feels  that  he  is  compassed  about  with  everlast¬ 
ing  love,  girded  about  with  everlasting  strength ;  his  will 
is  the  tempeied  steel  that  no  fire  can  melt,  no  force  can 

1  Fisher:  History  of  the  Reformation,  p.  2SG. 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  31 


break.  Such  faith  is  freedom  ;  and  this  spiritual  freedom 
is  the  source  and  strength  of  all  other  freedom. 

Thus  it  came  to  pass  that  the  religious  wars  and  perse¬ 
cutions  of  Europe  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  cen¬ 
turies  were  a  training-school  for  the  political  independence 
of  the  United  States  of  America  in  the  eighteenth  century. 
Diverse  and  seemingly  incongruous  as  were  the  nationali¬ 
ties  represented  in  the  Colonies,  —  Dutch,  French,  German, 
Swedish,  Scotch,  Irish,  English,  —  they  had  all  imbibed, 
either  by  experience  or  by  inheritance,  something  of  the 
spirit  of  personal  independence,  and  especially  of  religious 
liberty.  Gustavus  Adolphus  designed  his  colony  of 
Swedes  for  the  benefit  of  “all  oppressed  Christendom.” 
Penn  the  Quaker  established  Pennsylvania  as  “  a  free 
colony  for  all  mankind,”  where  the  settlers  “should  be 
governed  bylaws  of  their  own  making.”  The  first  charter 
of  the  Jerseys  —  which  were  largely  peopled  by  Quakers, 
and  Scotch  and  Irish  Presbyterians  —  declared  that  “no 
person  shall  at  any  time,  in  any  way,  or  on  any  pretence, 
be  called  in  question,  or  in  the  least  punished  or  hurt,  for 
opinion  in  religion.”  And  Oglethorpe’s  Colony  of  Georgia 
was  founded  to  be  a  refuge  for  “  the  distressed  people  of 
Britain,  and  the  persecuted  Protestants  of  Europe :  ”  there 
the  German  Moravian  settled  side  by  side  with  the  French 
Huguenot  and  the  Scotch  Presbyterian,  under  the  motto, 
“  We  toil  not  for  ourselves,  but  for  others.” 

So  in  all  the  Colonies  the  diverse  elements  of  race,  of 
education,  of  belief,  were  fused  in  the  broader  elements  of 
religious  liberty,  and  regard  for  man,  even  as  the  diverse 
modes  of  political  organization,  begun  in  diverse  modes  and 
motives  of  colonial  settlement,  were  fused  in  the  broader 
spirit  of  popular  representation  and  local  government.  In 
a  word,  the  elements  of  fusion  in  the  Colonies  were  more 
powerful,  if  less  numerous,  than  the  elements  of  rivalry 
and  discord.  But  the  crystallizing  centre  around  which 
those  elements  should  gather  and  cohere  was  the  political 
organization  of  New  England,  the  unit  of  which  was  the 
town-meeting,  in  which  society  was  the  state,  and  right 
was  law. 

That  organization  had  its  perfect  type  in  the  Colony  of 
the  Pilgrims  at  Plymouth,  which  anticipated  by  more 


82 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


than  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  the  American  doctrine  of 
government  by  the  people,  through  equal  laws  made  by 
themselves,  and  officers  chosen  by  themselves,  under  a 
written  covenant  or  constitution  as  the  supreme  and  final 
authority.  In  that  little  band  on  “  The  Mayflower ’’ were 
developed  the  principles  of  liberty,  —  spiritual,  political, 
ecclesiastical,  —  with  a  breadth  of  base,  a  harmony  of  pro¬ 
portion,  a  union  of  justice,  order,  and  authority,  with  free¬ 
dom,  that  no  political  philosophy  has  yet  transcended,  and 
no  political  society  attained.  That  covenant  which  they 
framed  and  signed  on  board  the  vessel  as  she  lay  at  anchor 
at  Cape  Cod,  in  which,  “  for  the  more  orderly  carrying-on 
of  their  affairs,  by  mutual  consent  they  entered  into  a 
solemn  combination,  as  a  body  politic,  to  submit  to  such 
government  and  governors,  laws  and  ordinances,  as  should 
by  a  general  consent  from  time  to  time  be  made  choice  of 
and  assented  unto,*’  —  that  simple  covenant  of  twenty  lines, 
which  has  served  as  the  model  of  a  free  constitutional 
government,  has  sometimes  been  ascribed  to  the  accident 
of  the  ship  being  carried  so  far  to  the  northward  of  her  in¬ 
tended  port,  that  the  patent  of  settlement  under  which  the 
voyagers  sailed  was  made  void  and  useless,  and  they  were 
obliged  to  take  measures  to  govern  and  protect  themselves. 
But  how  came  the  forty-one  men  who  signed  that  covenant 
by  a  political  wisdom  so  far  above  that  to  be  found  in  any 
average  company  of  colonists  or  emigrants  ?  How  came 
they,  in  an  unexpected  emergency,  to  frame  a  civil  govern¬ 
ment  so  as  to  combine  justice  with  equality,  popular  legis¬ 
lation  with  magisterial  authority,  personal  freedom  with 
the  general  good  of  the  Colony  ?  They  had  acquired  this 
wisdom  through  their  experience  of  self-government  in  the 
Church,  and  from  the  teaching  and  training  of  their  pastor. 
He  had  taught  them  spiritual  freedom,  —  that  Freiheit  des 
G-eistes  that  Germany  won  by  her  Thirty-Years’  war,  yet 
has  to  contend  for  anew  in  this  generation.  Winslow,  the 
third  governor  of  the  Plymouth  Colony,  has  left  on  record 
the  parting  words  of  their  pastor  to  the  Pilgrims  as  they 
set  sail  from  Leyden.  “  He  charged  us  before  God  to 
follow  him  no  farther  than  he  followed  Christ ;  and,  if  God 
should  reveal  any  thing  to  us  by  any  other  instrument  of 
his,  to  be  ready  to  receive  it  as  ever  we  were  to  receive 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION. 


88 


any  truth  by  his  ministry ;  for  he  was  very  confident  the 
Lord,  had  more  truth  and  light  yet  to  break  forth  out  of 
his  holy  word.  He  took  occasion  also  miserably  to  bewail 
the  state  of  the  reformed  churches,  who  were  come  to  a 
period  in  religion,  and  would  go  no  farther  than  the  instru¬ 
ments  of  their  reformation.  The  Lutherans  could  not  go 
beyond  what  Luther  saw;  for,  whatever  part  of  Gods 
word  he  had  further  revealed  to  Calvin,  they  had  rather 
die  than  embrace  it ;  and  so,  you  see,  the  Calvinists  they 
stick  where  he  left  them.  A  misery  much  to  be  lamented: 
for  though  they  were  precious  shining  lights  in  their 
times,  yet  God  had  not  revealed  his  whole  will  to  them ; 
and,  were  they  now  alive,  they  would  be  as  ready  to 
receive  further  light  as  that  they  had  received.  .  .  .  For 
it  is  not  possible  the  Christian  world  should  come  so  lately 
out  of  such  anti-Christian  darkness,  and  that  full  perfec¬ 
tion  of  knowledge  should  break  forth  at  once.”  1 

In  these  wise,  liberal,  and  noble  counsels,  spiritual  free¬ 
dom  and  progress  are  based  upon  the  broad  and  enduring 
principle  pf  allegiance  to  truth,  the  duty  of  the  soul  to 
seek  tor  light,  to  accept  light  from  whatever  source,  and 
to  obey  and  follow  truth  above  and  beyond  all  teachers 
and  authorities  whatsoever.  There  is  no  basis  of  personal 
independence  so  deep  and  firm  as  this.  Men  so  trained 
could  never  submit  to  tyranny  in  Church  or  in  State. 

A  like  lesson  in  ecclesiastical  freedom  the  Pilgrims  had 
learned  from  their  pastor,  who  taught  that  u  any  compe¬ 
tent  number  of  believers  in  Christ  have  a  right  to  em¬ 
body  into  a  church  for  their  mutual  edification ;  ”  that, 
being  embodied,  they  have  a  right  to  choose  all  their 
officeis ;  that  u  no  churches  or  church-officers  whatever 
have  any  power  over  any  other  church  or  officers,  to  con¬ 
trol  or  impose  upon  them,  but  are  all  equal  in  their 
rights  and  privileges,  and  ought  to  be  independent  in  the 
exercise  and  enjoyment  of  them.”  .  .  .  “  The  Papists,” 
said  he,  “  place  the  ruling  power  in  the  pope ;  the  Episco¬ 
palians,  in  the  bishop  ;  the  Puritan,  in  the  presbytery:  we 
put  it  in  the  body  of  the  congregation,  the  multitude, 
called  the  church.  But,  while  he  insisted  thus  strenu¬ 
ously  upon  the  completeness  and  the  independence  of  the 

1  New  England’s  Memorial,  p.  407. 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

local  church,  he  held  also  the  communion  of  the  churches 
in  counsel  and  brotherhood,  and  the  unity  of  all  believers 
in  the  one  body  of  Christ,  the  only  true,  spiritual,  holy, 

universal  church.  .  .  r  ,  ,. 

In  such  teachings  ancl  practice  was  laid  the  foundation 
for  local  government  in  matters  of  immediate  and  personal 
concern,  and  also  for  co-operation  and  sympathetic  unity 
in  things  of  the  higher  general  welfare.  Men  who  had 
been  accustomed  to  choose  their  own  spiritual  teachers 
and  guides,  to  administer  the  affairs  of  the  church  by 
their  direct  votes  or  by  officers  of  their  choice,  were  pre¬ 
pared  to  take  the  direction  of  civil  government  also,  when 
this  was  thrust  upon  them  by  the  necessity  of  their  posi¬ 
tion.  And  their  wis'e,  far-sighted  pastor  had  provided 
them  for  this  also.  He  who  had  trained  them  m  spiritual 
independence  and  ecclesiastical  freedom  gave  them  coun¬ 
sel  how  to  combine  the  exercise  of  popular  sovereignty 
with  that  dignity,  order,  and  authority  which  are  the  true 
divine  right  in  the  State.  In  his  farewell  letter  he  said 
“  Whereas  you  are  to  become  a  body  politic,  using  amongs 
yourselves  civil  government,  and  are  not  furnished  with 
persons  of  special  eminency  above  the  rest  to  be  chosen 
by  you  into  office  of  government,  let  your  wisdom  and 
godliness  appear  not  only  in  choosing  such  persons  as  clo 
entirely  love  and  will  promote  the  common  good,  but  also 
in  yielding  unto  them  all  due  honor  and  obedience  m  their 
lawful  administrations  ;  not  beholding  in  them  the  ordina¬ 
riness  of  their  persons,  but  God’s  ordinance  for  your  good , 
not  being  like  the  foolish  multitude,  who  more  honor 
the  gay  coat  than  either  the  virtuous  mincl  oi  the  man, 
or  the  glorious  ordinance  of  God.  But  you  know  better 
things,  and  that  the  image  of  the  Lord’s  power  and 
authority  which  the  magistrate  beareth  is  honorable,  m 
how  mean  persons  soever ;  and  this  duty  you  may  the 
more  willingly,  and  ought  the  more  conseionably,  to  per¬ 
form,  because  you  are  to  have  them  for  your  ordinary 
governors  which  yourselves  shall  make  choice  ot  tor  tnat 

A  government  ordered  with  such  wisdom  and  goodness 
would  more  than  realize  the  Republic  of  Plato.  lhe 

1  New  England’s  Memorial,  p.  18. 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  35 

pastor  of  the  Pilgrim  Church  was  also  the  founder  of  the 
Pilgrim  Commonwealth,  though  he  remained  in  Holland, 
and  died  an  exile  from  England,  and  a  stranger  to  Amer¬ 
ica.  The  birthplace  of  that  freedom,  civil  and  religious, 
which  at  length  incorporated  itself  in  the  United  States, 
was  not  Lexington,  nor  Philadelphia,  nor  Yorktown,  but 
Leyden ;  and  the  father  of  American  liberty  was  not 
Adams,  nor  Franklin,  nor  Henry,  nor  Jefferson,  nor  War¬ 
ren,  nor  Washington,  but  John  Robinson ,  who  found  in  his 
Yew  Testament  the  warrant  for  freedom  of  conscience, 
freedom  of  the  church,  and  freedom  of  the  common¬ 
wealth. 

What  manner  of  men  such  a  discipline  produced  is 
read  in  the  history  of  Yew  England  for  generations. 
Hume  sneers  at  the  Puritan  emigrants  to  Yew  England  as 
men  u  who  had  resolved  forever  to  abandon  their  native 
country,  and  fly  to  the  other  extremity  of  the  globe, 
where  they  might  enjoy  lectures  and  discourses  of  any 
length  or  form  which  pleased  them;”  yet  in  the  same 
breath  lie  gives  the  honest  praise,  that  “they  laid  the 
foundations  of  a  government  which  possessed  all  the 
liberty,  both  civil  and  religious,  of  which  they  found 
themselves  bereaved  in  their  native  country.”  1 

Yow,  it  was  this  very  determination  to  hear  sermons  in 
the  form  that  pleased  them,  and  to  endure  sermons  of  any 
length,  provided  they  were  full  of  sound  doctrine,  and 
strong,  clear  reasoning,  that  showed  and  stamped  the  in¬ 
tellectual  and  moral  character  of  the  early  Yew-England 
commonwealths.  To  the  first  settlers,  sermons  were  spir¬ 
itual  gymnastics.  They  had  few  books,  and  fewer  news¬ 
papers  ;  and  the  sabbath  service  supplied  the  social  and 
intellectual  excitement  of  the  week.  I  doubt  if  the 
world  had  ever  seen,  or  can  now  produce,  just  such  a  yeo¬ 
manry  as  the  yeomanry  of  Yew  England  down  to  the 
days  of  the  Revolution,  —  so  thoughtful,  so  earnest,  so 
devout,  so  disciplined  in  manly  thinking  and  heroic  faith 
by  the  pulpit,  at  once  the  freest  and  the  strongest  power 
of  that  simple  age.  What  that  pulpit  was  we  know  from 
the  sermons  of  Cotton,  Shepard,  Prince,  Wise,  Davenport, 
Edwards,  Hopkins,  Bellamy,  and  their  peers, — preachers 

1  Hume:  History  of  Great  Britain,  chap.  Lii. 


gg  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

wlio  dealt  with  tlieir  hearers  as  Christians  “of  full  age, 
•who  required  the  “  strong  meat  ”  of  Christian  doctrine. 
Many  of  these  preachers  were  pastors  of  country  parishes, 
thei/  hearers  the  farmers  of  the  district,  the  mechanics 
and  small  tradespeople  of  the  village,  with  here  and  there 
a  man  of  books  and  culture  ;  and  when  we  read  their  long 
argumentative  discourses,  with  such  lofty  spiritual  doctrine, 
sudi  keen,  strong  logic,  such  nice  metaphysical  distinc¬ 
tions  refined  to  the  twentieth  subdivision  such  earnest, 
fervid  appeals  to  conscience,  to  reason,  and  to  bcriptuie, 
and  remember  that  these  sermons  were  preached  to  men 
who  lived  by  the  sweat  of  tlieir  brow,  that  the  sermon 
was  looked  forward  to  on  Sunday,  was  talked  over  m  t 
family  on  Sunday  evening,  and  with  the  neighbors  throug  i 
the  week,  we  see  what  stuff  the  yeomanry  of  New  Eng¬ 
land  were  made  of,  and  to  what  manhood  they  wei 
trained.  There  were  drawbacks,  to  be  sure,  in  every  s 
community;  tares  were  mingled  with  the  wheat;  tlieie 
was  a  decline  from  the  primitive  vigor  m  morals  as  well  as 
in  faith:  yet  the  training  that  the  yeomanry  of  New  Ei  0 
land  had  mainly  through  her  pulpit  was  a  .moral  force 
that  the  historian  must  know  and  measure,  u  he  wo 
comprehend  the  spirit  of  American  liberty,  and  the 
motives  and  forces  of  the  American  Revolution.  _ 

Take  an  instance  later  down,  while  the  old  spirit  o 

New  England  still  lingered  in  the  country  towns  oi  Mas¬ 
sachusetts,  after  the  war  of  the  Revolution  had  so 
tied  the  condition  of  society.  Read  the  feeimons 
Nathanael  Emmons,  —  like  a  demonstration  of  Euclid  to 
clearness  of  argument  and  closeness  ot  reasoning,  ik  * 
essay  of  Addison  for  polish  of  style,  —  and  consider  that 
such  sermons  were  preached  for  fifty  years  to  a  p  am 
country  parish,  and  that  Emmons  lived  among  them  till 
past  ninety  years,  revered  like  an  Oriental  patiiaic  1, 
obeyed  almost  like  an  Oriental  sheik,  and  you  will  see 

2  Throueli  lack  of  experimental  acquaintance  xvi tli  t lie  tipo  of 

BlilMiS 

to  it  in  tlieir  own  consciousness. 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  37 


where  lay  the  power  of  independent  thought  and.  action 
in  New  England.1  I  remember,  in  my  boyhood,  two  ven¬ 
erable  farmers  of  Connecticut,  —  the  one  over  sixty,  the 
other  over  ninety,  —  who  used  to  stand  in  their  shirt¬ 
sleeves  in  the  sultry  field,  and  talk  of  God’s  sovereignty 
and  man’s  freedom,  and  things  invisible  and  eternal,  and 
quote  Paul  and  Augustine,  Calvin  and  Milton,  in  a  way 
that  could  put  a  young  tlieologue  to  the  blush.  Men  who 
could  discuss  such  themes  with  the  scythe  or  the  sickle 
in  hand  could  take  up  the  sword  and  the  musket  as  sons 
of  liberty,  because  sons  of  God. 

I  do  not  exaggerate  this  influence  of  the  pulpit  of  New 
England  upon  her  liberties.  Boston  was  the  focus  of 
resistance  to  the  usurpations  of  the  crown.  The  General 
Court  of  Massachusetts  originated  the  measures  that  re- 
suited  in  the  union  of  the  Colonies:  perhaps  the  most 
important  of  these  was  that  of  u  Committees  of  Corre¬ 
spondence,”  who  should  keep  each  Colony  advised  of  what 
was  passing  in  all  the  others,  and  should  concert  plans  of 
action  for  the  friends  of  freedom.  Now,  it  was  a  congre- 
gational  minister  who  proposed  this  idea  to  a  leading 
patriot,  and  I13  got  it  from  his  experience  in  church  affairs. 
I11 1766,  Dr.  Jonathan  Mayhew,  pastor  of  the  West  Church 
in  Boston,  wrote  to  James  Otis  these  wise  and  weighty 
words.  Dating  his  letter  “  Lord’s  Day  morning,  June  8,” 
he  says,  “  To  a  good  man  all  time  is  holy  enough ;  and 
none  is  too  holy  to  do  good,  or  to  think  upon  it.  Culti¬ 
vating  a  good  understanding  and  hearty  friendship  between 
these  Colonies  appears  to  me  so  necessary  a  part  of  pru¬ 
dence  and  good  policy,  that  no  favorable  opportunity  for 
that  purpose  should  be  omitted.”  He  then  advises  that 

1  Rev.  Dr.  N.  AV.  Taylor  told  me  that  Dr.  Emmons  once  preached  in  his 
pulpit  when  he  was  pastor  of  the  Centre  Church,  New  Haven.  After  ser¬ 
vice  Dr.  Taylor  remarked,  “The  people  listened  very  attentively.”  Dr. 
Emmons  answered  dryly,  “People  will  always  listen  when  you  give  them 
something  worth  listening  to.”  This  was  not  always  the  case,  however, 
even  with  his  own  congregation  at  Franklin ;  for,  as  the  story  goes,  one  hot 
summer’s  day,  the  farmers,  wearied  with  a  week  of  haying,  grew  drowsy 
under  Dr  Emmons’s  close  argumentation:  whereupon  he  came  to  a  sud¬ 
den  pause,  which,  of  course,  woke  them  up;  when  he  said,  “I  see  that 
this  sermon  cannot  keep  you  awake:  I  have  another  in  my  pocket  that  I 
will  give  you  instead.”  He  then  deliberately  preached  the  second  sermon, 
and  kept  them  awake.  And  a  pastor  could  venture  to  say  and  do  such 
things  who  was  elected  and  supported  by  the  people,  because  he  always 
did  give  them  “something  worth  listening  to,”  and  they  were  trained  to 
hear  and  value  it. 


88 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


the  General  Court  should  issue  circulars  to  the  legislative 
assemblies  of  the  other  Colonies  upon  the  repeal  of  the 
Stamp  Act,  and  other  matters,  44  expressing  a  desire  to 
cement  and  perpetuate  union  among  the  Colonies,  as  per¬ 
haps  the  only  means  of  perpetuating  their  liberties.  lie 
then  adds, 44  You  have  heard  of  the  communion  of  churches  : 

.  .  .  while  I  was  thinking  of  this  in  my  bed,  the  gieat  use 
and  importance  of  a  communion  of  colonies  appeared  to  me 
in  a  strong  light,  which  led  me  immediately  to  set  down 
these  hints  to  transmit  to  you.”  This  conception  of  some 
formal  and  active  union  of  the  Colonies  was  afterwards 
carried  out  by  such  Committees  of  Correspondence  pro¬ 
posed  by  Massachusetts. 

This  same  Dr.  Mayliew  had  made  himself  famous  by  his 
clear  and  bold  enunciation  of  the  doctrine  of  Paul  con¬ 
cerning  obedience  to  the  civil  power,  as  laid  down  in  the 
thirteenth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  In  a  dis¬ 
course  that  was  widely  published,  Mayhew  argued  that 
Paul  does  not  teach  implicit  and  absolute  submission  to 
rulers  as  such,  but  grounds  the  duty  of  obedience  upon 
the  end  for  which  rulers  are  instituted,  —  the  good  of 
society.  Hence  44  the  apostle’s  argument  is  so  far  from 
proving  it  to  be  the  duty  of  people  to  obey  and  submit  to 
such  rulers  as  act  in  contradiction  to  the  public  good,  and 
so  to  the  design  of  their  office,  that  it  proves  the  direct 
contrary.  For  if  the  end  of  all  civil  government  be  the 
good  of  society,  if  this  be  the  thing  that  is  aimed  at  in 
constituting  civil  rulers,  and  if  the  motive  and  argument 
for  submission  to  government  be  taken  from  the  apparent 
usefulness  of  civil  authority,  it  follows,,  that,  when  no 
such  good  end  can  be  answered  by  submission,,  there  re¬ 
mains  no  argument  or  motive  to  enforce  it ;  and  if,,  instead 
of  this  good  end’s  being  brought  about  by.  submission,  a 
contrary  end  is  brought  about,  and  the  ruin  and  misery 
of  society  effected  by  it,  here  is  a  plain  and  positive  reason 
against  submission  in  all  such  cases,  should  they  ever  hap¬ 
pen.  And  therefore,  in  such  cases,  a  regard  to  the  public 
welfare  ought  to  make  us  withhold  from  our  rulers  that 
obedience  and  submission  which  it  would  otherwise  be  our 
duty  to  render  to  them.”  1  Here  was  no  appeal  to  popular 

1  Discourse  concerning  Unlimited  Submission,  &c.,  January,  1750. 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  39 


passion,  no  declamation  about  the  right  of  revolution,  but 
a  sober,  argumentative  statement  of  the  true  relation 
between  rulers  and  subjects.  This  sermon  of  Mayhew 
anticipated  by  sixteen  years  the  doctrines  of  the  Declara¬ 
tion  of  Independence ;  and  we  cannot  wonder  that  men 
trained  in  'such  political  ethics  were  ripe  for  revolutionary 
measures,  as  their  last  resort  against  tyranny.  We  know 
also  that  books  of  law  were  in  great  demand  in  America, 
and  that  the  works  of  Locke,  Algernon  Sidney,  Milton, 
and  like  expounders  of  the  rights  of  man,  were  in  the 
hands  of  the  yeomanry  of  New  England,  as  well  as  of 
publicists  in  all  the  Colonies.1  It  was  such  a  people,  with 
such  preaching  and  such  reading,  that  George  III.  at¬ 
tempted  to  deprive  of  their  local  government. 

The  assault  was  foreshadowed  by  the  proposal  of  the 
Board  of  Trade  to  raise  revenue  out  of  the  American  Colo¬ 
nies  by  direct  authority  of  the  king,  and  by  restrictions 
on  American  trade  and  manufactures,  intended  to  keep  the 
Colonies  in  a  state  of  dependence  upon  Britain.  Frank¬ 
lin  narrates,  that,  in  1757,  Lord  Grenville,  then  presi¬ 
dent  of  the  council,  said  to  him,  “  You  Americans  have 
wrong  ideas  of  the  nature  of  your  constitution :  you  con¬ 
tend  that  the  king’s  instructions  to  his  governors  are  not 
laws,  and  think  yourselves  at  liberty  to  regard  or  disregard 
them  at  your  own  discretion.  .  .  .  But  such  instructions, 
so  far  as  they  relate  to  you,  are  the  law  of  the  land ;  for 
the  king  is  the  legislator  of  the  Colonies/’ 2  The  House 
of  Commons,  still  mindful  of  their  own  struggles  with  the 
royal  prerogative,  were  unwilling  to  sanction  this  step 
toward  absolutism  ;  but,  says  Franklin,  “  by  their  conduct 
towards  us  in  1765,  it  seemed  that  they  had  refused  that 
point  of  sovereignty  to  the  king,  only  that  they  might  re¬ 
serve  it  for  themselves.”  3  And  the  attempt  of  Parliament 

1  Burke  said  of  America,  “In  no  country,  perhaps,  in  the  world,  is  the 
law  so  general  a  study.  The  profession  itself  is  numerous  and  powerful; 
and  in  most  provinces  it  takes  the  lead.  The  greater  number  of  depu¬ 
ties  sent  to  the  Congress  were  lawyers.  But  all  who  read  (and  most  do 
read)  endeavor  to  obtain  some  smattering  in  that  science.  1  have  been  told 
by  an  eminent  bookseller,  that  in  no  branch  of  his  business,  after  tracts  of 
popular  devotion,  were  so  many  books  as  those  on  the  law  exported  to  the 
plantations.  The  colonists  have  now  fallen  into  the  way  of  printing  them 
for  their  own  use.  I  hear  that  they  have  sold  nearly  as  many  of  Black- 
stone’s  Commentaries  in  America  as  in  England.”  —  Speech  on  Conciliation 
with  America. 

2  Bigelow’s  Life  of  Franklin,  i.  3G6.  8  Ibid.,  3G8. 


40 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


to  over-ride  tire  colonial  legislatures  by  direct  taxation 
roused  the  selfsame  spirit  of  resistance  that  the  Commons 
had  put  forth  against  like  usurpations  of  the  crown.  To 
make  laws  for  the  Colonies,  and  to  levy  taxes  upon  them, 
without  either  consulting  their  own  legislatures,  or  giving 
to  the  Colonies  a  proportionate  representation  in  the 
national  Parliament,  was  a  violation  of  their  charters,.  an 
innovation  upon  their  long-conceded,  privilege  of  “  being 
governed  by  laws  of  their  own  making,  ’  and,  above  all, 
an  invasion  of  their  fundamental  rights  as  Englishmen, 
which  must  lead  to  their  being  degraded  from  English 
subjects  to  mere  dependants,  and  finally  to  political  serfs. 
Energetic  remonstrances  against  this  usurpation  were  put 
forth  either  by  the  colonial  legislatures,  or  by  their  agents 
in  London :  and  such  was  the  vigilance  of  the  Colonies, 
that,  for  a  period  of  twelve  years  from  1749,  they  suc¬ 
ceeded  in  baffling  any  overt  attempt  upon  their  liberties  ; 
till  in  1761  the  acts  of  trade  were  enforced,  by  the  Court 
of  Admiralty  in  a  way  so  arbitrary  and  insulting,  that 
Boston,  then  the  chief  port,  was  roused  to  resistance,  and 
James  Otis  made  his  memorable  declaration,  that  “an  act 
of  Parliament  against  the  Constitution  is  void.”  1  At  the 

i  The  Board  of  Trade  figures  so  largely  in  the  history  of  this  period, 
that  its  constitution  and  powers  are  deserving  of  special  mention.  Burke 
does  not  hesitate  to  characterize  it  as  a  political  “job,  a  sort  ot  gently- 
ripening  Iiot-liouse,  where  eight  members  of  Parliament  receive  salanes  ot 
a  thousand  a  year,  for  a  certain  given  time,  in  order  to  mature  at  a  proper 
season  a  claim  to  two  thousand”  {Speech  on  the  Economical  Reform). 
This  Board  was  a  device  of  Charles  II.,  formed  by  combining  in  one  the 
Council  for  Trade  and  the  Council  for  Plantations.  In  this  form  it  survived 
but  three  or  four  years  (1(5(53-73);  but  in  1(595  King  William  revived  the 
Board  of  Trade  with  amplified  powers,  to  checkmate  a  move  in  Parliament 
for  bringing  trade  and  the  plantations  under  the  more  immediate  control 
of  that  body.  Though  the  Board  was  only  an  advisory  council,  it  origi¬ 
nated  much  of  the  mischief  that  was  brought  upon  the  Colonies.  As  Pal- 
froy  well  remarks  (vol.  iv.  21),  its  very  name  u  expressed  what  was 
intended  to  be  the  spirit  of  colonial  administration.  The  Colonies  were  to 
be  made  auxiliary  to  English  trade.  The  Englishman  in  America  was  to 
be  employed  in  making  the  fortune  of  the  Englishman  at  home.”  In  1721 
the  Board  of  Trade  recommended  to  the  king  a  scheme  for  bringing  the 
Colonies  “under  his  Majesty’s  immediate  government;  ”  that  they  should 
all  be  put  “  under  the  government  of  one  lord-lieutenant  or  captain-gen¬ 
eral,  from  whom  other  governors  of  particular  provinces  should  receive 
their  orders  in  all  cases  for  the  king’s  service.  By  this  means  a  general 
contribution  of  men  or  money  may  be  raised  upon  the  several  Colonies  in 
proportion  to  their  respective  abilities.”  This  scheme  for  over-riding  the 
charters  and  legislatures  of  the  Colonies  was  not  then  openly  attempted; 
but  the  spirit  of  such  usurpation  was  carried  out  in  many  ways.  Thus  in 
1733,  against  the  remonstrance  of  some  of  the  Colonies,  duties  were  levied 
for  the  king  upon  all  sugar,  rum,  molasses,  spirits,  &c.,  imported  into  the 


GIIOUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  DEVOLUTION.  44 

same  time,  the  judges  in  the  Colonies  were  made  depend¬ 
ent  upon  the  good  pleasure  of  the  king;  that  is,  were 
made  tools  of  the  crown.  Still  the  people  held  their 
ground. 

At  length  there  arose  a  more  determined  and  sagacious 
enemy  ot  popular  freedom  than  those  the  Colonies  had 
hitherto  baffled,  —  a  minister  who  combined  subtilty  of 
invention  with  comprehensiveness  of  purpose,  and  energy 
of  will,  —  Charles  Townshend,  first  lord  of  trade,  who 
scrupled  at  nothing,  that  he  might  abrogate  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  the  colonial  assemblies,  and  make  the 
authority  of  Parliament  direct  and  absolute.  Charters, 
laws,  precedents,  pledges,  were  to  be  set  aside,  and  taxes 
imposed  by  Parliament,  to  be  enforced,  if  need  be,  by  a 
standing  army.  It  was  early  in  1763  that  Townshend 
broached  his  audacious  scheme ;  but  not  till  two  years 
later  did  the  ministry  and  Parliament  have  the  courage, 
rather  the  infatuation,  to  put  it  into  effect,  by  the  act 
requiring  all  business  and  legal  documents  to  be  written 
or  printed  upon  stamped  paper,  to  be  had  only  of  the  tax- 
collectors.  For  five  and  twenty  years  this  particular 
measure  had  been  hovering  in  the  air,  —  now  suggested 
by  some  colonial  governor  as  a  quietus  to  the  troublesome 
scrutiny  of  the  legislature  in  voting  supplies ;  now  pro¬ 
posed  by  a  lord  of  trade  or  of  the  treasury  as  a  direct 
and  easy  way  of  raising  revenue  ;  again  urged  by  the  mer¬ 
chants  of  London,  with  a  view  to  lessening  the  taxes  of; 
the  empire ;  but  at  every  point  watched  and  warded  off 
by  the  colonists,  until  at  last  it  was  attempted  to  be  forced 
upon  them  as  a  means  of  subjugation,  a  test-measure  of 
prerogative  in  taxation,  or,  at  least,  of  priority  in  levjfing  a 
tax.  It  came  upon  them,  therefore,  with  all  the  aggrava- 

Colonies.  On  Felt.  16,  1749,  a  bill  was  laid  before  Parliament  “to  regulate 
and  restrain  paper  bills  of  credit  in  tlie  British  Colonies  and  Plantations:” 
but  Hansard  reports  (vol.  xvi.  p.  5 63),  “  As  it  contained  a  clause  for  subject¬ 
ing  our  Colonies  and  Plantations  to  such  orders  and  instructions  as  should 
from  time  to  time  be  transmitted  to  them  from  the  crown,  it  raised  a  gen¬ 
eral  opposition  from  our  Colonies  and  Plantations  upon  the  continent  of 
America;”  and  the  bill  was  iinallv  dropped.  The  series  of  measures  that 
culminated  in  the  Stamp  Act  of  March  6, 1765,  proceeded  in  the  line  of  sub¬ 
jecting  the  Colonies  to  the  direct  control  of  the  crown,  and  of  a  parliament 
subservient  to  the  crown;  and  the  resistance  of  the  Colonies  was  simply  a 
defence  of  rights  established  by  charter  or  by  usage  against  such  usur¬ 
pation.  The  English  voter  of  to-day  has  reason  to  thank  them  for  a  stand 
that  arrested  royal  dictation  in  England. 


42 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


tion  of  an  evil  so  long  dreaded  as  to  be  an  object  of  bate ; 
and  it  came  as  the  symbol  of  usurpation  and  tyranny. 
The  Stamp  Act  said,  in  effect,  “  that  the  Americans  shall 
have  no  commerce,  make  no  exchange  of  property  with 
each  other,  neither  purchase,  nor  grant,  nor  recover  debts ; 
they  shall  neither  marry,  nor  make  their  wills,  unless  they 
pay  such  and  such  sums  in  specie  for  the  stamps  which 
must  give  validity  to  the  proceedings.  1  Now,  the  Ameri¬ 
can  people  of  this  generation  have  freely  imposed  upon 
themselves  just  such  taxes  to  meet  the  enormous  costs  of 
war.  But  in  1765  they  were  not  asked  nor  suffered  to 
lay  stamp  duties  on  themselves,  but  at  every  step  of  life, 
from  the  cradle  to  the  grave,  were  made  to  feel  this  annoy¬ 
ing  interference  of  a  government  in  which  they  had  no 
voice.  The  Stamp  Act,  like  the  late  attempt  to  tax 
matches  in  England,  set  every  house  on  fire.  That  it 
roused  the  mob  to  violent  resistance  is  not  to  be  wondered 
at ;  yet  sober  friends  of  liberty  deplored,  and  sought  to 
check,  excesses  that  might  prejudice  their  cause.  But 
these  sober  people  resisted  the  Stamp  Act :  first,  by  agree¬ 
ing  to  trust  to  personal  honor  in  matters  of  trade  and  law, 
so&as  to  dispense  with  the  stamped  documents ;  by  agree¬ 
ing,  as  a  measure  of  retaliation,  to  import  no  British  goods 
for  use  or  wear ;  by  banding  together  in  remonstrances  to 
Parliament  and  for  the  defence  of  colonial  rights;  and, 
finally,  by  making  stamp  duties  so  odious,  that  no  one 
could  be  found  willing  to  take  the  office  of  collector.  A 
stamp-officer  was  meaner  than  the  publican  in  Judaea. 
With  a  guard  at  his  beck,  he  slunk  from  public  opinion. 
Through  this  unarmed  resistance,  the  Stamp  Act  was 
repealed  within  a  year  after  it  was  passed.  That  repeal 
was  largely  due  to  the  personal  influence  of  Franklin,  wTho 
lived  constantly  in  London  as  agent  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Colony,  and  by  correspondence  and  conversation  with 
public  men,  and  contributions  to  the  press,  labored  to 
induce  Parliament  to  retrace  a  step,  that,  if  persisted  in, 
must  lead  to  open  hostilities.  At  last  Franklin  was  sum¬ 
moned  before  the  House  of  Commons,  in  committee  of  the 
whole,  to  be  examined  touching  the  feelings  and  wishes 
of  the  Colonies.  The  examination  lasted  ten  days :  it  was 

1  Bigelow’s  Life  of  Franklin,  i.  671. 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  43 

deep  and  thorough,  sometimes  keen  and  hostile :  but  the 
wisdom,  tact,  knowledge,  candor,  boldness,  of  the  plain 
philosopher,  conquered  the  prejudices  and  the  pride  of 
Parliament ;  and  the  journal  of  the  Commons  records, 
44  Feb.  13, 1766,  Benjamin  Franklin,  having  passed  through 
his  examination,  was  excepted  from  further  attendance;” 
and,  44  Feb.  24,  the  committee  reported  that  it  was  their 
opinion  that  the  House  be  moved  that  leave  be  given  to 
bring  in  a  bill  to  repeal  the  Stamp  Act ;  ”  and,  on  the  18th 
of  March,  the  king  signed  the  repeal.  Well  did  the  coun¬ 
trymen  of  Franklin,  in  striking  a  medal  in  his  honor, 
coupling  his  political  triumphs  with  his  triumphs  over 
nature,  surround  his  head  with  the  legend  :  — 

44  Eripuit  ccelo  fulmen,  sceptrumque  tyrannis,”  —  44  He 
drew  the  lightning  from  heaven,  and  wrested  the  sceptre 
from  tyrants.” 

As  a  specimen  of  the  shrewdness  of  Franklin,  take  his 
last  two  answers  to  the  House  of  Commons. 

Question.  —  What  used  to  be  the  pride  of  the  Ameri¬ 
cans  ? 

Answer.  —  To  indulge  in  the  fashions  and  manufac¬ 
tures  of  Great  Britain. 

Q.  —  What  is  now  their  pride  ? 

Ans.  —  To  wear  their  old  clothes  over  again  till  they 
can  make  new  ones. 

Those  were  answers  that  every  manufacturer  and  trades¬ 
man  in  England  could  understand.  Other  answers  display 
no  less  boldness  than  shrewdness. 

Q.  —  If  the  Stamp  Act  is  not  repealed,  what  do  you 
think  will  be  the  consequences  ? 

Ans.  —  A  total  loss  of  the  respect  and  affection  the 
people  of  America  beay  to  this  country,  and  of  all  the 
commerce  that  depends  on  that  respect  and  affection. 

Q.  —  If  the  Stamp  Act  should  be  repealed,  would  it 
induce  the  assemblies  of  America  to  acknowledge  the 
right  of  Parliament  to  tax  them  ? 

Ans.  —  No,  never!  ...  No  power,  liow  great  soever, 
can  force  men  to  change  their  opinions. 

But  the  great  value  of  Franklin’s  testimony  is,  that  it 
caused  to  be  spread  upon  the  journal  of  the  House  of 
Commons  a  statement  of  the  attitude  of  the  Colonies 


44  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


toward  the  mother-country,  that  could  not  then  be  con¬ 
tradicted  ;  and  that  is  the  standing  vindication  of  the 
Colonies  in  afterwards  taking  up  arms  in  their  defence. 
It  had  been  urged  that  the  stamp  tax  was  a  just  method 
of  recovering  from  the  Colonies  what  Britain  had  spent  on 
their  account  in  wars  with  the  French  and  Indians.  This  is 
the  statement  which  has  been  revived  by  “  The  Westminster 
Review;”  and,  though  I  have  answered  it  conclusively  from 
the  parliamentary  journals  of  the  time,  I‘  would  now 
emphasize  the  fact,  that  it  was  refuted  by  Franklin  before 
the  House  of  Commons,  and  the  refutation  put  on  record 
at  the  time. 

Q.  —  Do  you  think  it  right  that  America  should  be  pro¬ 
tected  by  this  country,  and  pay  no  part  of  the  expense  ? 

Ans.  —  That  is  not  the  case.  The  Colonies  raised, 
clothed,  and  paid,  during  the  last  war,  near  twenty-five 
thousand  men,  and  spent  many  millions. 

Q. —  Were  you  not  reimbursed  by  Parliament? 

Ans.  —  We  were  only  reimbursed  what,  in  your  opinion, 
we  had  advanced  beyond  our  proportion,  or  beyond  what 
might  reasonably  be  expected  from  us ;  and  it  was  a  very 
small  part  of  what  we  spent.  Pennsylvania,  in  particular, 
disbursed  about  five  hundred  thousand  pounds ;  and  the 
reimbursements,  in  the  whole,  did  not  exceed  sixty  thou¬ 
sand  pounds. 

Concerning  the  French  and  Indian  war,  Franklin  testi¬ 
fied,  “  I  know  the  last  war  is  commonly  spoken  of  here  as 
entered  into  for  the  defence,  or  for  the  sake,  of  the  people 
in  America.  I  think  it  is  quite  misunderstood.  It  began 
about  the  limits  between  Canada  and  Nova  Scotia;  about 
territories  to  which  the  croivn  indeed  laid  claim,  but  which 
were  not  claimed  by  any  British  colony.  None  of  the 
lands  had  been  granted  to  any  colonist :  we  had,  therefore, 
no  particular  concern  or  interest  in  that  dispute.  .  .  . 
The  Indian  trade  is  a  British  interest ;  it  is  carried  on 
with  British  manufactures,  for  the  profit  of  British  mer¬ 
chants  and  manufacturers :  therefore  the  war,  as  it  com¬ 
menced  for  the  defence  of  territories  of  the  crown  (the 
property  of  no  American)  and  for  the  defence  of  a  trade 
purely  British,  was  really  a  British  war  ;  and  yet  the  people 
of  America  made  no  scruple  of  contributing  their  utmost 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  45 

towards  carrying  it  on,  and  bringing  it  to  a  liappy  conclu¬ 
sion.” 

Again  he  said,  “America  has  been  greatly  misrepre¬ 
sented  and  abused  here,  in  papers  and  pamphlets  and 
speeches,  as  ungrateful  and  unreasonable  and  unjust,  in 
having  put  this  nation  to  an.  immense  expense  for  their 
defence,  and  refusing  to  bear  any  part  of  that  expense. 
The  Colonies  raised,  paid,  and  clothed  near  twenty-live 
thousand  men  during  the  last  war,  —  a  number  equal  to 
those  sent  from  Britain,  and  far  beyond  their  proportion  : 
they  went  deeply  into  debt  in  doing  this ;  and  all  their 
estates  and  taxes  are  mortgaged  for  many  years  to  come 
for  discharging  that  debt.” 

Franklin  reminded  the  House,  that,  in  response  to 
messages  from  the  king,  they  had  annually  voted  during 
the  war  two  hundred  thousand  pounds  for  compensation 
to  the  Colonies.1  “  This  is  the  strongest  of  all  proofs 
that  the  Colonies,  far  from  being  unwilling  to  bear  a  share 
of  the  burden,  did  exceed  their  proportion  ;  for  if  they  had 
done  less,  or  had  only  equalled  their  proportion,  there 
would  have  been  no  room  or  reason  for  compensation.” 2 

There  was  no  disputing  these  facts  at  the  time.  Here 
was  the  open  testimony  of  King  and  Commons  that  the 
Colonies  were  loyal,  brave,  generous ;  were  even  forward 
to  tax  themselves  for  the  defence  of  the  crown  :  yet  King 
and  Commons  would  now  extort  money  from  them  by  a 
stamp  duty  griping  every  man’s  purse.  •  The  Colonies  had 
never  been  a  farthing’s  expense  to  the  government  of 
Britain,3  and,  until  their  liberties  were  threatened,  had 
never  caused  anxiety  or  trouble.  As  Franklin  testified, 
“  They  submitted  willingly  to  the  government  of  the  crown, 
and  paid  in  their  courts  obedience  to  the  acts  of  Parlia¬ 
ment.  Numerous  as  the  people  are  in  the  several  old 
provinces,  they  cost  you  nothing  in  forts,  citadels,  garrisons, 
or  armies,  to  keep  them  in  subjection.  They  were  gov¬ 
erned  by  this  country  at  the  expense  only  of  a  little  pen, 

1  This  was  barely  two-fifths  of  their  actual  outlay. 

2  Hansard  gives  Franklin’s  examination  nearly  in  full;  and,  in  his 
report  of  the  debate  on  the  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act,  says,  “The  Colonies 
being  repaid  part  of  their  debt  is  convincing  proof  that  Parliament  were  of 
opinion  they  had  contributed  beyond  their  abilities”  (xvi.  205). 

3  With  the  single  exception  of  Georgia. 


46  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

ink,  and  paper :  tliey  were  led  by  a  thread.  They  had  not 
only  a  respect,  but  an  affection,  for  Great  Britain,  — for  its 
laws,  its  customs  and  manners,  —  and  even  a  fondness  for 
its  fashions,  that  greatly  increased  the  commerce.”  Yet  this 
loyal  and  willing  people  had  been  dealt  with  like  aliens 
and  malcontents,  to  be  subjected  by  the  arm  of  power. 

The  Stamp  Act  was  indeed  repealed,  but  only  as  a 
matter  of  expediency,  since  Parliament  made  the  fatal 
mistake  of  confounding  a  conflict  of  principle  with  a  dis¬ 
taste  for  a  measure  of  policy ;  and,  while  repealing  the 
Stamp  Act,  it  passed  a  bill  declaring  the  absolute  power 
of  Parliament  to  bind  America,  and  thus  struck  a  wanton 
blow  at  the  principle  of  local  government  in  the  Colonies. 
Against  this  assumption  to  govern  the  Colonies  without 
respect  to  their  own  legislatures,  Franklin  had  distinctly 
warned  the  Commons,  that  the  Colonies  “  think  it  extremely 
hard  and  unjust  that  a  body  of  men  in  which  they  have 
no  representatives  should  make  a  merit  to  itself  of  giving 
and  granting  what  is  not  its  own,  but  theirs,  and  deprive 
them  of  a  right  they  esteem  of  the  utmost  value  and  impor¬ 
tance,  as  it  is  the  security  of  all  their  other  rights.”  In 
the  parliamentary  debate  on  the  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act, 
Pitt  said,  “  The  Commons  of  America,  represented  in  their 
several  assemblies,  have  ever  been  in  possession  of  the 
exercise  of  this  their  constitutional  right  of  giving  and 
granting  their  own  money.  They  would  have  been  slaves 
if  they  had  not  enjoyed  it.” 1  Camden  took  the  same 
ground  in  the  Lords.  On  this  point  the  Colonies  were 
consistent,  united,  and  steadfast.  They  never  shifted  their 
ground,  never  invented  pretexts  for  thwarting  the  British 
Government,  never  opposed  for  the  sake  of  opposing, 
never  schemed  for  independence,  never  resisted  on  the 
score  of  money  alone;  but,  having  freely  and  loyally  met 
their  dues,  they  withstood  the  attempt  to  extort  money  by 
direct  levies  of  Parliament.  This  identity  of  the  question 
of  taxes  with  the  question  of  rights  was  the  core  of  the  con¬ 
troversy  between  the  Colonies  and  Parliament :  hence  the 
joy  at  the  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act  was  short-lived ;  for  it 
soon  became  evident  that  Parliament  was  aiming,  not  at 
taxation  as  a  means  of  revenue,  but  at  political  subjuga¬ 
tion,  for  which  enforced  taxation  was  the  ready  instrument. 

i  Jan.  14,  1766.  Hansard,  vol.  xvi.  100, 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  47 

In  March,  1766,  the  Stamp  Act  was  repealed.  In  the 
following  June,  Townshend,  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
openly  advocated  the  annulling  of  all  colonial  charters,  ancl 
the  substitution  of  a  uniform  government,  proceeding  from 
the  crown,  by  which  the  local  assemblies  should  be  re¬ 
strained,  and  the  royal  governors,  judges,  and  attorneys  be 
rendered  independent  of  the  people  ; 1  and,  a  year  later,  this 
reckless  and  resolute  opponent  of  the  freedom  of  the  Colo¬ 
nies  was  the  leader  of  the  British  ministry,  and  persuaded 
Parliament  to  test  again  its  power  in  America  by  taxes 
upon  sundry  imports,  and  especially  tea.2 

That  roused  the  women  of  America,  whose  tea-parlia¬ 
ments  were  invaded  by  a  tax  on  their  favorite  beverage. 
In  every  village,  in  every  circle,  it  was  resolved  to  drink 
no  tea  till  the  tax  should  be  repealed.  The  good  dames 
culled  the  herbs  of  the  field,  dried  these,  and  brewed  from 
them  a  tea  that  could  not  but  make  them  the  more  bitter 
against  Parliament  every  time  they  tasted  it.  In  many 
places,  a  decree  of  social  exclusion  was  pronounced  against 
any  who  should  drink  a  cup  of  tea.  The  town  of  Lexing¬ 
ton  resolved,  “  If  any  head  of  a  family  in  this  town,  or  any 
person,  shall  from  this  time  forward,  and  until  the  duty 
be  taken  off,  purchase  any  tea,  or  sell  and  consume  any  tea 
in  their  family,  such  person  shall  be  looked  upon  as  an 
enemy  to  this  town  and  to  his  country,  and  shall  by  this 
town  be  treated  with  neglect  and  contempt.”  In  a  small 
village  community  of  that  day,  what  sentence  could  be 
more  galling  than  this  of  being  outlawed  by  that  supreme 
court  of  America,  —  public  opinion  ? 

As  no  tea  could  be  sold,  the  merchants  ceased  to  import 
it.  But  the  British  premier  said, 44  The  king  means  to  try 
the  question  with  America;”  and  the  attempt  was  made 
to  force  tea  upon  the  Colonies.  Three  tea-ships  arrived  in 
Boston  Harbor  ;  but  a  guard  of  citizens  refused  to  let  them 
land  their  cargo.  An  immense  meeting  of  the  people 
called  upon  the  governor  to  order  the  ships  back  to  Eng¬ 
land  :  he  refused ;  and  a  band  of  men  disguised  as  Indians 
went  to  the  ships,  and,  in  the  most  quiet  and  orderly  man¬ 
ner,  dropped  their  three  hundred  and  forty  chests  of  tea 
into  the  water.  This  was  the  famous  44  Boston  Tea-Party  ” 

1  See  Townsliend’s  Speech  in  Bancroft,  vi.  9.  2  June,  17G7. 


48  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


of  Dec.  16, 1773 ;  and  so  well  did  tlie  participants  disguise 
themselves  and  their  secret,  that  nobody  was  ever  brought 
to  account  for  it.  Yet  this  mild  riot  brewed  in  England  a 
fearful  storm.  First  came  the  Boston  Port  Bill,  closing 
the  port  to  all  trade  ;  but  other  seaports  refused  to  profit 
by  the  patriotic  sacrifices  and  sufferings  of  Boston,  and 
then  restraining  acts  were  imposed  upon  the  commerce  of 
all  the  Colonies.  Next  followed  the  quartering  of  an  army 
upon  the  people  ;  and  in  1774  the  Regulation  Acts,  de¬ 
stroying  free  government  and  free  speech.  What  was  the 
effect  of  this  last  blow  has  been  told  by  one  of  the  clearest 
lawyers  of  the  United  States  in  his  Centennial  Address  at 
Lexington : 1-— 

o 

“  The  Regulation  Acts  were  radical  and  revolutionary. 
They  went  to  the  foundations  of  our  public  system,  and 
sought  to  reconstruct  it  from  the  base  on  a  theory  of  par¬ 
liamentary  omnipotence  and  kingly  sovereignty.  The 
councillors  had  been  chosen  by  the  people  through  their 
representatives.  By  the  new  law  they  were  to  be  ap¬ 
pointed  by  the  king,  and  to  hold  at  his  pleasure.  The 
superior  judges  were  to  hold  at  the  will  of  the  king,  and 
to  be  dependent  upon  his  will  for  the  amount  and  payment 
of  their  salaries ;  and  the  inferior  judges  to  be  removable  by 
the  royal  governor  at  his  discretion,  he  himself  holding  at 
the  king’s  will.  The  sheriffs  were  to  be  appointed  by  the 
royal  governor,  and  to  hold  at  his  will.  The  juries  had 
been  selected  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  towns  :  they  were 
now  to  be  selected  by  the  new  sheriffs,  —  mere  creatures  of 
the  royal  governor.  Offenders  against  the  peace,  and 
against  the  lives  and  persons  of  the  people,  h^d  been  tried 
here  by  our  courts  and  juries;  and  in  the  memorable  case 
of  the  soldiers’  trial  for  the  firing  of  March,  1770,  we  had 
proved  ourselves  capable  of  doing  justice  to  our  enemies. 
By  the  new  act,  persons  charged  with  capital  crimes,  and 
royal  officers,  civil  or  military,  charged  with  offences  in 
the  execution  of  the  royal  laws  or  warrants,  could  be 
transferred  for  trial  to  England,  or  to  some  other  of  the 
Colonies. 

“But  the  deepest-reaching  provision  of  the  acts  was 
that  aimed  at  the  town-meetings.  They  were  no  longer 

1  Richard  H.  Dana,  jun. 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  49 

to  be  parliaments  of  freemen,  to  discuss  matters  of  public 
interest,  to  instruct  tlieir  representatives,  and  look  to  the 
redress  of  grievances.  They  were  prohibited,  except  the 
two  annual  meetings  of  March  and  May,  and  were  then 
only  to  elect  officers ;  and  no  other  meetings  could  be  held, 
unless  by  the  written  permission  of  the  royal  governor; 
and  no  matters  could  be  considered,  unless  specially  sanc¬ 
tioned  in  the  permission.  Am  I  not  right  in  saying  that 
these  acts  sought  a  radical  revolution,  a  fundamental 
reconstruction  of  our  ancient  political  system?  They 
sought  to  change  self-government  into  government  by  the 
king ;  and,  for  home-rule,  to  substitute  absolute  rule  at 
Westminster  and  St.  James’s  Palace.  They  gave  the 
royal  governor  and  his  council  here  powers  which  the 
king  and  his  council  could  not  exercise  in  Great  Britain, 
—  powers  from  which  the  British  nobles  and  commons  had 
fought  out  their  exemption,  and  to  which  they  would 
never  submit.” 

Thus  far  Mr.  Dana.  I  have  now  established  the  three 
points  that  I  laid  down  at  the  outset :  (1)  The  American 
Colonies  had  no  quarrel  with  the  English  nation,  of  which 
they  would  have  been  proud  to  remain  an  integral  part ; 
(2)  The  British  ministry  had  itself  to  thank  for  American 
independence  ;  (3)  The  English  people  owe  to  the  Ameri¬ 
can  Revolution  no  small  share  in  the  conservation  of  their 
own  local  and  popular  freedom  against  the  encroachments 
of  the  crown,  and  also  in  that  wise  and  liberal  policy 
that  now  retains  English  Colonies  within  the  British 
Empire. 

To  enforce  the  subversion  of  local  government  in  the 
Colonies,  a  British  army  was  quartered  upon  the  people ; 
and  the  first  aim  of  its  commander  was  to  disarm  the 
militia,  that,  under  authority  of  their  legislature,  the  towns 
had  organized,  and  which  had  been  always  ready  to  defend 
the  crown  of  England  against  foreign  foes.  That  hand¬ 
ful  of  the  men  of  Lexington,  who,  on  the  morning  of  the 
19th  April,  17T5,  drew  themselves  up  in  military  order  on 
their  village  green  to  await  the  British  regulars,  repre¬ 
sented  the  town  in  its  ancient  rights  of  government  and 
of  defence.  It  was  not  liberty  alone,  but  law,  —  the  Eng¬ 
lish  law  of  a  thousand  years,  —  that  was  embodied  in  that 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


little  company.  The  demand  to  lay  down  their  arms  was 
a  demand  to  surrender  the  liberty  of  the  people  and  the 
sovereignty  of  law ;  and  they  refused.  There  they  stood, 
—  wives,  children,  neighbors,  looking  on,  —  sixty  free¬ 
men  upon  their  own  soil,  and  that  soil  the  little  campus 
of  the  town  militia ;  stood  to  represent  the  right  of  the 
town  to  exist,  and  its  determination  not  to  yield  its 
immemorial  rights ;  stood  facing  eight  hundred  British 
regulars ;  refused  to  surrender  their  trust ;  refused  to 
give  up  their  arms,  and  with  these  the  right  of  bearing 
arms  ;  refused  to  disperse,  and  thus  to  abandon  the  town- 
right  of  muster;  stood  still  till  they  were  fired  upon, 
being  resolved  to  put  Britain  in  the  wrong,  by  show¬ 
ing  that  her  government  was  bent  upon  destroying  the 
liberties  of  her  subjects,  and  trampling  out  local  govern¬ 
ment  by  arbitrary  power.  In  violation  of  the  chartered 
rights  of  Massachusetts,  in  violation  of  militia  laws  that 
the  king  himself  had  taken  advantage  of  for  his  help 
against  the  French,  the  British  troops  were  sent  to  seize 
all  military  stores  in  the  keeping  of  the  towns,  and  to  dis¬ 
arm  the  militia.  Against  this  usurpation,  Lexington  had 
written  to  Boston,  “We  trust  in  God:  we  shall  be  ready 
to  sacrifice  our  estates,  and  every  thing  dear  in  life,  yea, 
and  life  itself,  in  support  of  the  common  cause.”  The 
men  of  Lexington  kept  their  vow  :  — 

“  They  went  where  duty  seemed  to  call: 

They  scarcely  asked  the  reason  why; 

They  only  knew  they  could  but  die; 

And  death  was  not  the  worst  of  all. 

Of  man  for  man  the  sacrifice, 

Unstained  by  blood  save  theirs,  they  gave. 

The  flowers  that  blossomed  from  their  grave 
Have  sown  themselves  beneath  all  skies.”  1 


Those  men  of  Lexington  and  Concord  stood  for  Eng¬ 
lish  liberty  and  the  English  constitution  against  a  despotic 
revolution  attempted  by  a  bullying  king  and  a  toadying 
parliament.  That  I  do  not  use  these  epithets  unadvisedly, 
or  in  a  hostile  spirit,2  “  The  London  Times  ”  bears  witness 


1  Whittier. 

2  I  am  truly  sorry  to  use  such  terms  concerning  the  powers  that  were  ; 
but  I  have  sought  in  vain  for  more  euphonious  words  to  express  the  exact 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION. 


in  its  calm  and  candid  leader  upon  the  hundredth  anniver¬ 
sary  of  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill :  44  While  the  great 
majority  of  the  British  people,  as  represented  in  public 
opinion  and  in  literature,  was  on  the  American  side,  the 
government  and  the  majority  in  both  houses  of  Parlia¬ 
ment  were  absolutely  proof  against  every  consideration  of 
humanity,  prudence,  or  common  sense.  .  .  .  The  greater 
part  of  the  American  contention  in  that  war  was  equally 
shared  by  the  British  people.  The  principles  of  popular 
representation,  and  no  taxation  without  it,  self-government 
by  popular  municipal  institutions,  the  independence  of  the 
judicial  bench,  and  complete  responsibility  in  the  exercise 
of  all  power  and  patronage,  were  equally  at  stake  on  both 
sides  of  the  Atlantic.”  .  .  .  But  the  politicians  44  were 
maintaining  the  principles  of  utter  absolutism  ;  ”  and  the 
British  Government  “persisted  in  the  struggle  with  reck¬ 
less  and  inhuman  obstinacy.”  1 

The  battle  of  Bunker  Hill,  on  the  17th  June,  1775, 
showed  the  British  what  stuff  the  colonists  were  made  of, 
and  what  they  could  do  when  put  upon  their  mettle. 
That  battle  is  not  to  be  judged  upon  the  scale  of  modern 
warfare ;  but  old  soldiers,  who  had  been  in  European  wars, 
testified  that  they  had  never  seen  so  hot  a  conflict,  or  so 
many  losses  in  proportion  to  the  force  engaged.  On  the 
one  side,  three  thousand  British  regulars  marching  with 
bulldog  courage  up  the  hill  under  cover  of  the  fire  of  their 
fleet;  on  the  other,  squads  of  militia,  who  had  worked  all 
night  in  putting  up  the  breast-works  from  which  they 
poured  forth  their  deadly  musketry.  More  than  a  thou¬ 
sand  British  fell,  dead  and  wounded ;  five  hundred  Ameri¬ 
cans,  the  Americans  quitting  their  trenches  only  when 
their  powder  gave  out,  then  fighting  with  the  but-ends 

truth.  Also  these  are  not  original.  Thackeray  says  of  George  III.,  “He 
bribed ;  he  bullied  ;  he  darkly  dissembled  ori  occasion  ;  he  exercised  a 
slippery  perseverance  and  a  vindictive  resolution,  which  one  almost  ad¬ 
mires  as  one  thinks  his  character  over.” 

As  to  the  subserviency  of  Parliament,  its  own  journals  witness  for  that. 
But  the  people  of  England  were  not  with  Parliament.  That  it  is  possible 
for  Parliament  to  run  counter  to  the  spirit  and  will  of  the  nation,  even  in 
these  days  of  a  free  and  enlarged  suffrage,  was  made  evident  by  the  almost 
contemptuous  disregard  of  public  feeling  in  passing  the  Royal  Titles  Act 
of  187(i.  Americans,  who  are  often  so  grossly  misrepresented  by  their  own 
Congress,  are  not  disposed  to  cherish  a  grudge  against  the  English  people 
for  the  misdoings  of  Parliament  a  century  ago. 

1  Times,  June  17,  1875. 


52  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

of  their  muskets,  and  retreating  with  little  disorder  from  an 
enemy  too  crippled  for  pursuit,  dhe  British  had  won  the 
hill ;  but  the  moral  victory  was  with  the  Americans.  Hence 
we  date  our  emancipation  from  that  battle,  and  the  lieioes 
of  Bunker  Hill  are  our  immortals  :  — 

“  On  Fame’s  eternal  camping-ground 
Tlieir  silent  tents  are  spread.” 


The  news  of  Bunker  Hill  put  the  British  Government 
in  a  rage.  The  Revolution  must  be  put  down  by  over¬ 
whelming  numbers.  Unhappily,  Germany  was  then  in  a 
position  to  serve  as  the  recruiting-ground  of  British  des¬ 
potism  ;  and  while  France  gave  us  her  Lafayette,  and 
Poland  her  Kosciusko,  Brunswick  and  Hesse  hired  out 
their  soldiers  by  the  thousand  to  suppress  our  liberties; 
though  Prussia  somewhat  redeemed  the  disgiace  through 
the  scorn  of  the  great  Frederic  for  such  infamy,  the  sei- 
vices  of  Baron  Steuben  in  drilling  our  raw  volunteers,  and 
the  heroic  sacrifice  of  De  Kalb  in  our  cause.  Witli  their 
German  mercenaries,  the  British  Government  thought  the 
subjugation  of  the  Colonies  an  easy  task.  .  They  would 
make  Boston  a  base  of  operations  and  supplies,  and  ovei- 
awe  the  continent.  But  now  there  was  a  Congress  at 
Philadelphia,  and  Washington  was  at  Cambridge  as  com¬ 
mander-in-chief  of  the  Continental  army.  Too  weak  m 


1  Franklin,  writing  from  Paris  1  May,  1777,  said  of  tlie  traffic  in  Hes¬ 
sians,  “Tlie  conduct  of  these  princes  of  Germany,  who  have  sold  the  blood 
of  their  people,  has  subiected  them  to  the  contempt  and  odium  of  all 
Eurone.  The  Prince  of  Anspach,  whose  recruits  mutinied  and  refused  to 
march  was  obliged  to  disarm  and  fetter  them,  and  drive  them  to  the  sea¬ 
side  by  the  help  of  his  guards,  himself  attending  in  person.  In  his  return, 
he  was  publicly  hooted  by  mobs  through  every  town  lie  passed  m  Holland, 
with  all  sorts  of  reproachful  epithets.  The  King  of  Prussia  s  humor  of 
obliging  those  princes  to  pay  him  the  same  toll  per  head  lor  the  men  they 
drive  through  his  dominions  as  used  to  be  paid  him  for  their  cattle,  because 
thev  were  sold  as  such,  is  generally  spoken  of  with  approbation,  as  con¬ 
taining  a  just  reproof  of  these  tyrants.” — Bigelow  s  Lije  oj  franklin,  n. 

1  ‘  In  a  valuable  note  to  this  passage,  Mr.  Bigelow  has  gathered  the  follow¬ 
ing  important  items.  In  a  letter  to  Voltaire,  Frederic  says  of  the  Land¬ 
grave  of  Hesse,  “S’il  Gait  sort!  de  mon  e'cole,  il  ne  se  serait  point  tait 
Catholique,  et  il  n’aurait  pas  vendu  ses  sujets  aux  Anglais  comme  on 
vend  le  betail  pour  l’egorger.”  —  GEuvres posth.  de  FreWric,  tom.  l.  p.  o-o. 

In  a  letter  to  Lord  North,  dated  from  Kew  Aug.  20,  l<v5,  George  III. 
said  “  The  onlv  idea  these  Germans  ought  to  adopt  is  the  being  contractors 
for  raising  recruits,  and  fixing  the  price  they  will  deliver  them  at  Hamburg, 
Rotterdam,  and  any  other  port  they  may  propose.”  Can  any  Englishman 
or  German  read  that  to-day  without  indignant  shame . 


GROUNDS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  53 

powder  and  artillery  to  risk  an  engagement,  Washington 
resolved  first  to  hem  the  British  in  Boston,  and  then  to 
drive  them  out ;  but,  when  he  was  ready  to  bombard  the 
city,  he  hesitated  to  destroy  the  property  of  friends  in 
punishing  foes,  and  so  applied  to  Congress  for  authority. 
Its  president,  John  Hancock  of  Boston,  was  reputed  to  be 
the  richest  man  in  America ;  and  his  property  was  largely 
in  houses,  which,  from  their  position,  must  be  among  the 
first  to  fall,  should  Washington  open  fire  upon  the  city. 
Rising  in  his  place,  Hancock  said,  “Nearly  all  I  have  in 
the  world  is  in  the  town  of  Boston ;  but  if  the  expulsion 
of  the  British  troops,  and  the  liberty  of  my  country,  de¬ 
mand  that  my  houses  be  burned  to  ashes,  issue  the  order, 
and  let  the  cannon  blaze  away.”  At  length  the  cannon 
were  ready  to  blaze  away ;  but  the  British  fleet  and  army 
made  an  ignominious  retreat.1 

Up  to  this  time,  little  had  been  thought,  and  less  said, 
by  the  leaders,  touching  independence  as  an  issue  of  the 
conflict.  Even  Washington  still  hoped  for  a  reconciliation 
that  should  secure  the  Colonies  in  the  rights  for  which 
alone  they  had  taken  up  arms.  But  the  flames  of  war 
were  kindling  coastwise  all  along  the  Colonies;  and,  with 
these,  the  fire  of  independence  was  kindling  in  the  hearts 
of  the  people.  At  length  the  force  of  events,  and  the 
vehemence  of  public  feeling,  compelled  Congress  to  take 
up  the  measure  of  independence.  For  days  the  Declara¬ 
tion  had  been  debated ;  and  on  the  4th  of  July  the  old 
State  House  of  Philadelphia  was  besieged  by  an  impatient 
populace,  while  the  bell-ringer  waited  hour  by  hour  in  the 
belfry  for  the  signal  that  he  should  announce  the  Declara¬ 
tion  ratified.  At  last  the  signal  came,  and  at  every  stroke 
rang  out  the  legend  that  years  before  had  been  cast  upon 

1  During  the  winter  of  1775— 7G,  Washington  held  Gen.  Howe’s  army  in 
Boston  under  siege.  With  an  army  of  only  sixteen  thousand  men  he  guarded 
a  semicircle  of  eight  or  nine  miles,  his  centre  being  at  Cambridge,  his  right 
wing  at  Roxbury,  and  his  left  upon  the  Medford  River  ;  thus  cutting  off 
from  Boston  all  supplies  by  land.  But  Washington  lacked  ammunition, 
money,  and  clothing  for  liis  troops  ;  and  was  hampered  by  the  system  of 
colonial  enlistment,  which  made  him  dependent  upon  the  governors  of  the 
several  Colonies  for  recruits.  Under  these  discouragements,  he  had  to 
build  up  an  army,  and  hold  it  together.  On  the  night  of  March  4,  177b, 
Washington  fortified  Dorchester  Heights;  and,  as  his  position  was  made 
stronger  and  more  threatening  day  by  day,  Gen.  Howe  evacuated  Boston, 
and  embarked  for  Halifax  on  the  17tli  March.  Congress  presented  Wash¬ 
ington  with  a  gold  medal  in  commemoration  of  this  event. 


54  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

the  rim  of  the  bell:  “ Proclaim  liberty  throughout  the  land 
unto  all  the  inhabitants  thereof.”1  As  president  of  the 
Congress,  John  Hancock  had  signed  the  declaration  that 
“  these  Colonies  are  free  and  independent  States.”  With 
his  own  hand  he  has  issued  the  supreme  order  for  the 
expulsion,  not  of  the  British  troops  only,  but  of  the  Brit¬ 
ish  government  and  name.  Now  “let  the  cannon 
BLAZE  AWAY.” 

l  This  hell  was  first  hung  in  1753.  During  the  Revolutionary  war  it  was 
taken  down  and  buried,  to  avoid  its  being  captured  by  the  enemy.  It  was 
a  favorite  pleasure  of  my  boyhood  to  climb  the  tower,  and  sit  under  the 
bell  at  the  stroke  of  twelve. 1  Years  ago,  on  a  festive  day,  it  was  cracked; 
and  it  has  ever  since  been  preserved  as  a  national  relic. 


LECTURE  II. 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION  OF  INDEPENDENCE. 

THE  men  who,  as  a  Congress  of  the  Colonies,  adopted 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  indulged  in  no 
idle  rhetoric  when  they  said,  “  For  the  support  of  this  Dec¬ 
laration,  with  a  firm  reliance  on  the  protection  of  Divine 
Providence,  we  mutually  pledge  to  each  other  our  lives, 
our  fortunes,  and  our  sacred  honor.”  Two  of  them,  John 
Hancock  and  Samuel  Adams,  had  already  been  proclaimed 
rebels  and  outlaws  ;  and  a  price  was  set  upon  their  heads.1 
The  famous  mot  of  Franklin  shows  how  clearly  their  col¬ 
leagues  realized  what  they  were  doing  when  they  put  their 
names  to  the  Declaration.  As  the  members  of  the  Con¬ 
gress  came  to  the  final  vote  upon  the  document,  Hancock 

1  On  the  12th  of  June,  1775,  Gen.  Gage,  then  royal  governor  of  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  proclaimed  martial  law  throughout  tlie  Province,  at  the  same 
time  making  an  offer  of  pardon  in  the  following  terms:  “I  do  hereby,  in 
his  Majesty's  name,  offer  and  promise  his  most  gracious  pardon  to  all  per¬ 
sons  who  shall  forthwith  lay  down  their  arms,  and  return  to  the  duties  of 
peaceable  subjects;  excepting  only  from  the  benefit  of  such  pardon  Samuel 
Adams  and  John  Hancock,  whose  offences  are  of  too  flagitious  a  nature 
to  admit  of  anv  other  consideration  than  that  of  condign  punishment” 
(Journal  of  the’ Provincial  Congress,  p.  331).  The  Boston  Gazette  (of  June 
21,  1775),  with  better  wit  than  rhyme,  thus  parodied  this  exception:  — 

•“  But  then  I  must  out  of  this  plan  lock 
Both  Samuel  Adams  and  John  Hancock; 

For  those  vile  traitors  (like  bedentures) 

Must  be  tucked  up  at  all  adventures, 

As  any  offer  of  a  pardon 

Would  only  tend  those  rogues  to  harden.” 

(Quoted  in  Wells’s  Life  of  Samuel  Adams,  ii.  310.) 

John  Adams  testifies  that  “James  Otis,  Samuel  Adams,  and  John  Han¬ 
cock,  were  the  three  most  essential  characters,  the  first  movers,  flie  most 
constant,  steady,  persevering  springs,  agents,  and  most  disinterested 
sufferers  and  firmest  pillars,  of  the  whole  Revolution.”  Of  these,  he  rates 
Otis  first;  but  he  describes  Samuel  Adams  as  “the  wedge  of  steel  to  split 
the  knot  of  lignumvitcjn  which  tied  North  America  to  Great  Britain.”  — 
Works  >  x.  208. 


55 


56  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


said,  “We  must  be  unanimous;  there  must  be  no  pulling 
different  ways;  we  must  all  hang  together.”  —  “Yes,” 
replied  Franklin,  “  we  must  all  hang  together,  or  we  shall 
all  hang  separately.”  1  That  flash  of  wit  reveals  the  situa¬ 
tion,  —  a  group  of  men,  mature  in  years  and  in  experience, 
signing  away  their  lives,  if  need  be,  for  their  liberty,  yet 
with  a  perfect  consciousness  of  the  meaning  of  the  act, 
and,  in  this  moment  of  solemnity  and  of  peril,  displaying 
a  calm  and  cheerful  confidence  in  their  cause.2  It  was  one 
thing  for  an  eager,  impatient  populace  outside  the  Hall  of 
Independence  to  demand  the  Declaration,  and  to  greet  its 
passage  with  huzzas,  with  bonfires,  and  illuminations ;  and 
it  was  another  thing  for  those  fifty-six  delegates  of  the 
Colonies  within  the  hall  to  issue  that  Declaration  upon  the 
pledge  of  their  honor,  their  fortunes,  and  their  lives.  It 
was  one  thing  for  the  mob  in  various  cities,  as  the  news  of 
the  Declaration  reached  them,  to  burn  royal  governors  in 
effig}r,  and  throw  down  the  statues  of  the  king  3  and  his 
ministers  ;  and  it  was  another  thing  for  the  framers  of  the 
Declaration  to  build  a  pedestal,  —  that  might  be  their  own 
mausoleum,  —  upon  which  Liberty  and  Union  should  stand 
so  firmly,  that  they  could  never  be  thrown  down. 

These  were  no  fiery  revolutionists,  intent  upon  a  work 
of  destruction ;  no  enthusiastic  doctrinaires ,  thinking  to 
build  of  the  smoke  and  ashes  of  society  a  new  political 
order  for  mankind.  They  loved  England,  —  some  of  them 
as  the  land  of  their  birth ; 4  most  of  them  as  the  land  of 
their  fathers ;  all  of  them  as  the  then  foremost  land  of 
freedom  and  culture,  whose  empire  they  would  gladly 
share,  if  this  should  preserve  liberty  to  the  subject  equally 
with  loyalty  to  the  crown.  They  were  averse  to  Avar ;  for 

1  Bigelow’s  Life  of  Franklin,  ii.  3G0.  This  could  hardly  have  been  at  the 
signing,  which  was  simply  a  matter  of  form,  some  time  after  the  treason¬ 
able  act  itself. 

a  Every  one  has  heard  of  the  saying  of  Hancock,  as  he  signed  the  Decla¬ 
ration  in  his  large,  bold  hand,  “  John  Bull  can  read  that  without  specta¬ 
cles;”  and  of  Charles  Carroll,  who,  when  it  was  suggested  that  he  might 
escape  because  there  were  others  of  his  name,  added,  “o/  Carrollton”  say¬ 
ing,  “  Now  they’ll  know  where  to  find  me.” 

3  AVasliington  was  in  New  York  when  the  statue  of  George  III.  in  the 
Bowling  Green  was  demolished.  He  condemned  such  violent  proceedings 
in  a  general  order,  saying,  “  The  general  hopes  and  trusts  that  every  offi¬ 
cer  and  man  will  endeavor  so  to  live  and  act  as  becomes  a  Christian  soldier, 
defending  the  sacred  rights  and  liberties  of  his  country.” 

4  Eight  of  the  signers  were  born  in  Great  Britain. 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION. 


57 


they  had  had  experience  of  its  cost  and  waste  and  losses 
in  the  defence  of  their  own  frontiers.  They  were  averse 
to  a  change  of  government ;  being  satisfied  with  their  local 
administration,  if  its  freedom  could  be  preserved  in  har¬ 
mony  with  the  national  Parliament.  They  were  men  of 
experience  in  affairs,  accustomed  to  act  with  reason  and 
deliberation,  and  honored  with  the  confidence  of  their 
fellow-citizens  in  an  age  when  office  was  yet  an  honor,  and 
politics  not  yet  a  trade.  The  average  age  of  the  signers 
of  the  Declaration  was  somewhat  over  forty :  only  two  of 
them  were  under  thirty,  one-half  of  them  were  forty-five 
and  upwards,  seventeen  were  over  fifty,  and  seven  over 
sixty  years.  The  fervor  of  youth  was  controlled  by  the 
prudence  and  firmness  of  middle  life,  and  guided  by  the 
wisdom  and  dignity  of  age.  Of  the  whole  number  of 
fifty-six,  thirty-nine  had  received  a  liberal  education :  of 
these,  twenty-four  were  in  the  profession  of  the  law,  four 
were  doctors  of  medicine,  one  was  president  of  a  college.1 
In  addition  to  the  eight  who  were  born  in  the  old  coun¬ 
try  were  twelve  who  had  visited  England  and  the  conti¬ 
nent  of  Europe ;  and,  of  these,  seven  had  pursued  their 
studies  at  Eton,  Edinburgh,  Cambridge,  and  the  Inner 
Temple.  One  of  the  signers  was  a  nephew  of  the  Dean 
of  St.  Paul’s ; 2  another,  the  grandson  of  the  Bishop  of 
Worcester;3  a  third  had  been  honored  with  the  freedom 
of  the  city  of  Edinburgh.4  Not  a  few  of  them  —  John 
Adams,  Thomas  Jefferson,  Benjamin  Franklin,  Robert 
Morris,  Benjamin  Rush,  Roger  Sherman,  Oliver  Wolcott 
—  have  left  memorials  in  science,  law,  finance,  statesman¬ 
ship,  diplomacy,  of  which  any  nation  might  be  proud ;  and 
their  collective  state  papers  commanded  the  admiration  of 
their  age.5  These,  then,  were  not  a  body  to  be  hurried  by 
impulse  into  rash  innovations.  Nor  were  they.  The 
British  Government  forced  war  upon  the  Colonies,  and 
the  war  forced  independence. 

When  Franklin  retired  from  his  post  at  London  as 
agent  of  the  Colonies,  in  March,  1775,  the  utmost  that 
was  thought  of  was  resistance,  and  resistance  as  a  means 

1  John  Witherspoon  of  Princeton.  2  Francis  Lewis  of  New  York. 

3  Francis  Hopkinson  of  Philadelphia. 

4  Richard  Stockton  of  New  Jersey. 

6  Pitt  and  Burke  were  warm  in  their  praise. 


58  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

toward  reconciliation.  Separation  was  but  a  dream  or  a 
dread.  When  Franklin  reached  home,  he  was  met  with 
the  news  of  Lexington ;  and,  the  day  after  his  arrival, 
he  was  chosen  a  member  of  the  Continental  Congress. 
Then  followed  Bunker  Hill,  and  the  threats  of  British 
officers  to  lay  waste  the  country  by  foreign  mercenaries. 
At  this  stage,  the  American  philosopher  wrote  to  a  former 
friend  in  London,1  — 

Mr.  Strahan, —  You  are  a  member  of  Parliament,  and  one  of 
that  majority  who  has  doomed  my  country  to  destruction.  You  have 
begun  to  burn  our  towns,  and  murder  our  people.  Look  upon  your 
hands  !  they  are  stained  with  the  blood  of  your  relations.  You  and 
I  were  long  friends  :  you  are  now  my  enemy,  and  I  am 

Yours,  B.  Franklin. 

The  tone  of  this  letter  shows  that  public  spirit  in  the 
Colonies  had  already  grown  determined  and  defiant.  A 
letter  to  Josiah  Quincy  from  Franklin,  in  the  following 
April  (1776),  marks  the  progress  of  the  spirit  of  inde¬ 
pendence  :  “  You  ask,  When  is  the  Continental  Congress 
by  general  consent  to  be  formed  into  a  supreme  legisla¬ 
ture,  alliances  defensive  and  offensive  formed,  our  ports 
opened,  and  a  formidable  naval  force  established  at  the 
public  charge  ?  I  can  only  answer,  at  present,  that  noth¬ 
ing  seems  wanting  but  that  4  general  consent.’  The  novel¬ 
ty  of  the  thing  deters  some;  the  doubt  of  success,  others; 
the  vain  hope  of  reconciliation,  many.  But  our  enemies 
take  continually  every  proper  measure  to  remove  these 
obstacles ;  and  their  endeavors  are  attended  with  success, 
since  every  day  furnishes  us  with  new  causes  of  increas¬ 
ing  enmity,  and  new  reasons  for  wishing  an  eternal  sepa¬ 
ration  ;  so  that  there  is  a  rapid  increase  of  the  formerly 
small  party  who  were  for  an  independent  government.”  2 

Two  months  later,  this  party  of  independence  had 
grown  to  embrace  almost  the  entire  Congress,  and  the 
great  body  of  the  people  of  all  the  Colonies.3  But  the 

1  Bigelow’s  Life  of  Franklin,  ii.  343.  2  Ibid.,  ii.  357. 

3  The  Revolution  was  born  of  the  heroic  spirit  of  America,  and  represent¬ 
ed  the  life  of  her  people.  Mr.  Josiah  Quincy  once  narrated  to  me  how  in 
liis  boyhood  he  used  to  go  to  read  to  John  Adams,  then  toward  his  nineti¬ 
eth  year.  The  delight  of  the  old  patriot  was  to  listen  to  Cicero  de  Senec- 
tute*;  and  he  would  take  up  in  advance  the  glowing  periods,  saying,  “O 
prseclarum  diem,  quuin  in  illud  divinum  animorum  concilium  ccetumque 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION. 


59 


patriots  who  were  charged  with  the  responsibility  of 
affairs  felt  their  way  with  the  caution  of  men,  who,  know¬ 
ing  the  calamities  of  war  and  the  risks  of  revolution, 
realized  their  personal  accountability  to  their  country,  to 
the  world,  to  history,  and  to  God.  On  the  seventh  day  of 
June  (17T6),  a  resolution  was  laid  before  Congress  in 
these  words  :  — 

“  Resolved ,  That  these  United  Colonies  are,  and  of  right  ought  to 
be,  free  and  independent  States  ;  that  they  are  absolved  from  all 
allegiance  to  the  British  crown;  and  that  all  political  connection 
between  them  and  the  state  of  Great  Britain  is,  and  ought  to  be, 
totally  dissolved.” 

After  three  days’  discussion,  a  committee  was  appointed 
to  draught  a  declaration  to  the  effect  of  the  resolution,  and 
the  whole  subject  was  postponed  to  the  first  day  of  July: 
on  that  day  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  taken 
up  by  the  House  in  committee  of  the  whole,  and,  after 
three  days  of  spirited  and  thorough  discussion,  was  adopt¬ 
ed,  and  authenticated  by  the  signatures  of  the  president 
and  secretary  of  the  Congress.-  Hence  the  4th  of  July 
is  the  proper  anniversary  of  the  Declaration.1  But  Con- 

proficiscar,  quumque  ex  liac  turba  et  colluvione  discedatn !  Proficiscar  enim 
non  ad  eos  solum  viros,  de  quibus  ante  dixi,  verurn  etiam  ad  Catonem 
meum,  quo  nemo  vir  melior  natus  est,  nemo  pietate  praestantior  ;  cuius  a 
me  corpus  crematum  est  —  quod  contra  decuit,  ab  illo  meum  animusyero 
non  me  deserens,  sed  respectans,  in  ea  profecto  loca  discessit,  quo  milii  ipsi 

cernebat  esse  veniendum.”  _  A  ,, 

Grand  old  liero!  thus  joining  the  patriotic  fellowships  of  earth  to  the 
company  of  the  spirits  of  the  just.  One  day  young  Quincy  said  to  him, 
“It  is  disputed  whether  you,  Mr.  Adams,  or  Mr.  Jefferson,  or  Franklin, 
started  the  idea  of  independence:  pray  tell  me  how  it  was.”  —  “Neither 
Jefferson  nor  Franklin  nor  I  can  claim  that  honor  :  independence  sprang 
from  the  hearts  of  the  people.  When  I  was  a  student  of  law,  I  taught 
school  at  Worcester,  and  boarded  round  in  the  families  of  the  farmers- 
and,  as  I  heard  them  talk,  I  got  such  ideas  of  the  state,  of  liberty,  and  of 
patriotism,  as  satisfied  me  we  must  come  to  this  at  last.” 

i  On  the  2d  of  July,  Congress  adopted  the  resolution  of  June  7,  That 
these  United  Colonies  are,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  free  and  independent 
States;  that  they  are  absolved  from  all  allegiance  to  the  British  crown;  and 
that  all  political  connection  between  them  and  the  state  of  Great  Britain 
is,  and  ought  to  be,  totally  dissolved.”  This  act  of  separation  tilled  John 
Adams  with  such  transport,  that  he  wrote,  “  The  second  day  of  July,  1770, 
will  be  the  most  memorable  epoch  in  the  history  of  America,  to  be  cele¬ 
brated  by  succeeding  generations  as  the  great  anniversary  festival.”  But 
the  issuing  of  the  Declaration  two  days  later,  which  announced  to  the 
world  the  independence  of  the  States,  was  seized  upon  as  the  fact  to  be 
commemorated.  (For  details  as  to  dates,  see  Jefferson  s  Autobiography , 
and  the  Letters  of  John  Adams  to  Mrs.  Adams.)  The  alleged  declaration 
of  independence  at  Mecklenburg,  N.C.,  May  20,  1775,  is  not  sufficiently 


60  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

gress,  sensible  of  the  magnitude  of  this  act,  and  desiring 
to  proceed  with  solemnity  and  deliberation,  caused  the 
Declaration  to  be  engrossed  on  parchment;  and,  on  the 
second  day  of  August,  this  copy  was  signed  by  each  and 
every  member  of  the  Congress.  Then  “thirteen  clocks 
were  made  to  strike  together,  —  a  perfection  of  mechanism 
which  no  artist  had  ever  before  effected.”  1 

But,  while  Congress  was  thus  deliberate  in  the  act  and 
the  form  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  many  of  the 
leaders  were  enthusiastic  for  the  separation  from  Great 
Britain,  and  sanguine  of  success.  Witherspoon  described 
the  public  spirit  as  not  only  ripe  for  independence,  but 
rotting  for  want  of  it.  There  was  in  everybody’s  mouth 
this  apothegm  from  Paine’s  trenchant  tract  styled  “  Com¬ 
mon  Sense :  ”  “  England  is  too  ignorant  of  America  to 
govern  it  wisely,  too  jealous  of  America  to  govern  it  justly, 
and  too  distant  from  America  to  govern  it  at  all.”  Rising 
to  the  fervor  of  a  prophet,  John  Adams  said,  “  Live  or  die, 
survive  or  perish,  I  am  for  the  Declaration.  ...  It  is  an 
event  to  be  commemorated,  as  the  day  of  deliverance,  by 
solemn  acts  of  devotion  to  God  Almighty.  It  ought  to  be 
solemnized  with  pomp  and  parade,  with  shows,  games, 
sports,  guns,  bells,  bonfires,  and  illuminations,  from  one  end. 
of  the  continent  to  the  other,  from  this  time  forward  for¬ 
evermore.”  Fifty  years  after,  this  untiring  patriot,  who 
had  served  his  country  as  minister  plenipotentiary  to 
France,  England,  and  other  countries  of  Europe ;  who  for 
eight  years  was  Vice-President  under  Washington,  and 
four  years  was  President  after  Washington,  —  John  Adams, 
then  nearing  his  ninety-first  birthday,  on  the  night  of  the 
3d  of  July  lay  sinking  into  the  sleep  of  death.  The  mor¬ 
row  was  the  jubilee  of  independence ;  and  at  daybreak 
he  was  roused  from  his  lethargy  by  the  ringing  of  bells 
and  the  booming  of  cannon.  With  a  bewildered  look,  he 
asked  the  occasion  of  this  noise  of  cannon  and  bells ;  and, 
being  reminded  that  it  was  “  Independence  Day,”  he  kin¬ 
dled  with  the  memories  of  half  a  century,  cried  “  Inde- 

authenticated  to  take  its  place  in  history;  and,  in  any  case,  it  is  clear,  from 
the  correspondence  between  Jefferson  and  Adams  upon  the  subject,  that 
neither  of  them  had  any  knowledge  of  the  resolutions  said  to  have  been 
passed  at  Charlotte. 

1  John  Adams:  Works,  x.  283. 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION.  61 

pendence  forever !  ”  and  expired.  At  almost  the  same  hour, 
on  that  same  fiftieth  anniversary  of  national  independence, 
the  Virginian  patriot  who  draughted  the  Declaration,  who 
was  Vice-President  under  Adams,  and  President  after  him, 
—  Thomas  Jefferson, —also  died.  Another  fifty  years 
have  gone,  the  hundredth  anniversary  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  has  come,  and  the  work  they  did  stands,  — 
stands  broader,  firmer,  more  appreciated  and  honored,  than 
in  their  day.  The  words  in  which  Mr.  Webster  commemo¬ 
rated  Adams  and  Jefferson  have  gathered,  force  in  these 
past  fifty  years  :  u  No  age  will  come  in  which  the  Ameri¬ 
can  Revolution  will  appear  less  than  it  is,  —  one  of  the 
greatest  events  in  human  history ;  no  age  will  come  in 
which  it  shall  cease  to  be  seen  and  felt  on  either  continent, 
that  a  mighty  step,  a  great  advance,  not  only  in  American 
affairs,  but  in  human  affairs,  was  made  on  the  4th  of  July, 
1776.”  1 

In  the  century  that  has  passed  since  that  day,  the 
United  States  have  gone  through  every  experience  possi¬ 
ble  to  a  nation,  save  that  of  being  conquered  and  held  by 
a  foreign  power ;  the  voluntary  abandonment  of  one  form 
of  government  —  the  Confederation  of  1<77—  8U —  lor 
another,  —  the  Constitution  of  1788; 3  severe  financial 
crises,  from  the  Continental  currency  of  the  Revolution 
down  to  the  “greenbacks”  of  the  civil  war;  two  great  for¬ 
eign  wars,  —  that  of  1812  with  Great  Britain,  in  which  the 
United  States  won  renown  as  a  naval  power,  and  that  of 
1845  with  Mexico,  in  which  the  United  States  acquiredan 
immense  reach  of  territory  from  Texas  to  the  Pacific 
Ocean  ;  the  violence  of  political  parties,  especially  in  the 
strifes  over  the  currency,  the  tariff,  and  slavery ;  the  cor¬ 
ruption  of  the  civil  service,  and  the  degeneracy  of  public 
officers;  the  formidable  rebellion  of  1861,  with  the  four 
years  of  civil  war  that  followed  it ;  the  assassination  of 
one  President,  and  the  attempt  to  impeach  another ;  the 
amendment  of  the  Constitution,  so  that  newly-emancipated 
slaves  were  admitted  to  vote,  and  made  eligible  to  office  on 

1  Oration  on  Adams  and  Jefferson:  Works,  vol.  i.  116. 

2  The  Articles  of  Confederation  were  adopted  by  Congress  15tli  Novem¬ 
ber,  1777,  but  not  iinally  ratiiied  by  the  Colonies  until  March,  1781.  _ 

3  The  Constitution  was  reported  to  Congress  Sept.  28,  1787,  and  m  the 
course  of  1788  was  so  far  ratiiied  by  States  as  to  go  into  operation  March  4, 
1789. 


62  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

the  basis  of  universal  suffrage ;  an  enormous  public  debt 
created  by  the  war,  and  the  spirit  of  speculation  and 
extravagance  that  the  war  had  fostered ;  the  reconstruc¬ 
tion  of  disordered  States,  and  the  reviving  of  their  industry 
in  face  of  hostile  factions  and  races ;  and,  worst  of  all,  a 
medley  of  foreign  immigration,  with  its  ignorance  and  im¬ 
pudence,  its  priestcraft  and  pauperism,  its  radicalism  and 
rationalism,  its  sensuality  and  its  superstition:  all  these 
manifold  tests  and  perils  have  the  United  States  gone 
through  successfully,  triumphantly,  in  their  first  century 
of  national  life,  though  at  each  phase  of  excitement,  each 
approach  of  danger,  the  prophets  of  evil  gave  warning  of 
the  dissolution  of  the  Union,  the  subversion  of  the  re¬ 
public. 

Of  late,  European  critics  have  invented  for  the  United 
States  a  new  danger,  or  rather  have  revived  a  peril  that 
was  thought  imminent  in  the  early  days  of  independence. 
Those  political  owls  of  the  Old  World  that  cling  to  the 
shades  of  the  middle  ages,  with  that  air  of  superlative 
wisdom  which  this  particular  species  of  owl  knows  so  well 
to  put  on,  now  sing,  “  To-who  with  your  republic  :  you’ll 
come  to  a  monarchy  at  last.”  But,  as  I  listen  to  these 
oracles  of  night,  I  ask,  “  Do  you,  then,  threaten  us  with  a 
monarchy  as  a  calamity  ?  or  do  you  wish  that  we  should 
become  monarchists  in  order  to  re-assure  you  of  your  posi¬ 
tion  and  principles  by  the  failure  of  ours  ?  ”  To  all  such 
piophets  and  counsellors  I  would  say,  u  Ponder  the  lessons 
of  the  century,  and  if  you  yourselves  would  not, 

‘  Like  the  owl  by  day, 

If  he  arise,  be  mocked  and  wondered  at,’ 

then  learn  from  Americans  to  be  so  well  satisfied  of  the 
excellence  and  stability  of  your  own  government,  that, 
without  either  boasting  or  envy,  }mu  can  leave  other  peo¬ 
ple  to  be  satisfied  with  theirs.  I  do  not  advocate  a  re¬ 
public  for  you,  nor  recommend  it  as  a  panacea  for  your 
social  evils,  dhe  fundamental  doctrine  of  American 
republicanism  is,  that  every  people  should  have  such  gov¬ 
ernment  as  best  pleases  itself;  and,  if  a  monarchy  best 
pleases  you,,  that  is  no  affair  of  ours.”  To  our  Prussian 
ciitics  especially,  I  am  wont  to  say,  u  I  can  but  congratu- 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION. 


63 


late  you  upon  having  the  best  reigning  house  of  modern 
history,  and  the  best  sovereign,  surrounded  with  the  ablest 
ministry,  of  the  present  stage ;  and  having  these,  with 
two  constitutions,  two  parliaments,  and  universal  suffrage 
to  boot,  I  beg  you  to  be  so  far  content  as  to  look  calmly 
upon  a  great,  free,  happy  people  beyond  the  sea,  and,  with¬ 
out  prejudices  or  prophecies,  to  study  their  history  with  a 
view  to  ascertain  why  they  are  what  they  are.”  Here  is 
an  organic,  independent  republic,  a  hundred  years  old, 
resting  upon  a  foundation  of  local  self-government  and 
provisional  union  that  had  stood  for  a  hundred  and  fifty 
years  before.  This  national  life  is  to  be  studied  in  the 
moral  and  social  forces  that  shaped  it  into  being ;  in  the 
ethical  and  political  truths  upon  which  it  established  itself 
as  a  self-contained  and  independent  power ;  and  in  the 
political  forms  through  which  it  has  developed  its  freedom, 
its  unity,  and  its  strength.  The  nascent  forces  of  the 
nation  I  have  considered  in  the  previous  Lecture :  in  this 
we  are  to  study  its  basis  of  ethical  and  political  truths ; 
and,  in  the  next,  the  forms  of  its  political  development. 
The  remaining  Lectures  of  the  series  will  be  given  to  the 
fruits' of  this  national  life  under  the  several  modes  of  politi¬ 
cal,  social,  industrial,  educational,  and  religious  activity. 

The  ethical  and  political  doctrines  upon  which  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  United  States  is  founded  were  put  forth 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  as  44  self-evident 
truths,”  and  concern  the  essential  and  inalienable  rights 
of  men,  the  source  and  the  functions  of  government,  and 
the  right  of  revolution.  In  judging  of  this  document,  one 
should  keep  in  mind  that  it  is  a  44  declaration  ”  of  political 
principles,  and  not  a  dissertation  on  political  philosophy 
defining  and  defending  those  principles.  The  Congress 
that  published  independence  knew  they  were  doing  a  great 
act,  and  gave  the  reasons  for  that  act,  —  not  the  reasons 
of  the  reasons.  The  rhetoric,  indeed,  is  open  to  criticism, 
as  somewhat  too  strained  and  declamatory  for  a  state 
paper ;  but  judged  by  the  oratory  of  the  British  Parlia¬ 
ment  of  the  same  period,  and  by  the  then  prevailing  tone 
of  literature,  it  was  less  faulty  for  its  purpose  than  it  may 
seem  to  our  severer  taste  ;  and,  besides,  some  extravagance 
of  expression  may  be  pardoned  to  men  who  were  defying 


04  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


a  superior  power  at  tire  peril  of  their  lives.1  Yet  theirs 
was  no  vaporing  pronunciamento :  the  Declaration  has  the 
vehemence  of  truth  and  strength.  It  begins  by  recogniz¬ 
ing  the  comity  of  nations,  and  appeals  to  that  high  court 
of  international  equity  by  which  the  claims  and  doings  of 
each  individual  people  must  be  judged,  —  the  aggregate 
opinion  of  the  civilized  world.  Without  waiting  for  the 
prestige  of  success,  or  seeking  the  recognition  of  separate 
powers,  the  United  States  declared  themselves  a  nation, 
and  put  themselves  before  the  court  of  nations  upon  the 
merits  of  their  cause,  with  facts,  truths,  rights,  addressed 
to  the  common  consciousness  of  mankind.  The  existence 
of  a  nation  being  determined  by  certain  natural  laws  or 
causes  under  a  superintending  Providence,  they  set  forth 
the  evidence  that  no  premature  or  wilful  outbreak,  but 
such  inevitable  causes,  had  compelled  this  act  of  independ¬ 
ence.  “  When,  in  the  course  of  human  events,  it  becomes 
necessary  for  one  people  to  dissolve  the  political  bands 
which  have  connected  them  with  another,  and  to  assume 
among  the  powers  of  the  earth  the  separate  and  equal 
station  to  which  the  laws  of  nature  and  of  nature’s  God 
entitle  them,  a  decent  respect  to  the  opinions  of  mankind 
requires  that  they  should  declare  the  causes  which  impel 

1  In  some  points,  Congress  improved  the  draught  as  prepared  by  Jeffer¬ 
son.  For  “ inherent  and  inalienable  rights”  they  substituted  “  certain  in¬ 
alienable  rights.”  After  the  phrase,  “  Let  facts  be  submitted  to  a  candid 
world,”  they  struck  out  the  boastful  statement,  “ for  the  truth  of  which  we 
pledr/e  a  faith  yet  unsullied  by  falsehood." 

While  the  document  was  under  criticism,  Franklin  relieved  the  sensi- 
,  tiveness  of  Jefferson  by  this  story :  “  When  I  was  a  journeyman  printer, 
one  of  my  companions,  an  apprenticed  hatter,  having  served  out  liis  time, 
was  about  to  open  .shop  for  himself.  His  first  concent  was  to  have  a  hand¬ 
some  signboard  with  a  proper  inscription.  He  composed  it  in  these  words, 
1  John  Thompson,  Hatter,  makes  and  sells  Hats  for  ready  Money,’  with  a  ligure 
of  a  hat  subjoined.  But  he  thought  he  would  submit  it  to  his  friends  for 
their  amendments.  The  first  he  showed  it  to  thought  the  word  ‘  hatter  ’  tau- 
tologous,  because  followed  by  the  words  ‘  makes  hats,’  which  showed  he  was 
a  hatter.  It  was  struck  out.  The  next  observed  that  the  word  ‘makes’ 
might  as  well  be  omitted,  because  his  customers  would  not  care  who  made 
the  hats :  if  good,  and  to  their  mind,  they  would  buy.  by  whomsoever  made. 
He  struck  it  out.  A  third  said  he  thought  the  word  4  ‘  for  ready  money  ’  were 
useless,  as  it  was  not  the  custom  of  the  place  to  sell  on  credit:  every  one 
who  purchased  expected  to  pay.  They  were  parted  with;  and  the  inscrip¬ 
tion  now  stood,  ‘  John  Thompson  sells  hats.’  ‘ Sells  hats,’  says  his  next 
friend:  ‘  why,  nobody  will  expect  you  to  give  them  away.  What,  then,  is 
the  use  of  that  word  V*  It  was  stricken  out;  and  hats  followed,  the  rather 
as  there  was  one  painted  on  the  board.  So  liis  inscription  was  ultimately 
reduced  to  John  Thompson,  with  the  ligure  of  a  hat  subjoined.” 

After  all,  it  would  not  make  a  bad  ligure  if  the  Declaration  were 
Thomas  Jefferson  and  a  liberty-cap! 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION. 


65 


them  to  the  separation ;  ”  and  to  this  end  they  say,  “  Let 
facts  be  submitted  to  a  candid  world.”  Here  was  no 
secret  conspiracy,  aiming  to  get  control  of  power  by 
treachery  and  assassination;  no  coup  d'etat,  trusting  to 
audacity  and  surprise  for  its  success  ;  no  mob  of  adventur¬ 
ers,  threatening  slaughter  and  death  to  whoever  should 
oppose  them,  and  carrying  anarchy  and  destruction  in 
their  path ;  but  a  body  of  men  trained  in  the  service  of 
the  State,  selected  by  their  countrymen  for  their  intelli¬ 
gence,  prudence,  and  experience,  addressed  themselves 
with  the  calmness  of  truth,  the  earnestness  of  conviction, 
the  confidence  of  right,  to  the  common  sense  and  the 
common  conscience  of  their  age,  and  to  the  tribunal  of 
history.  With  all  their  lofty  notions  of  popular  rights 
and  national  independence,  the  American  revolutionists 
did  not  feel  at  liberty  to  disturb  the  peace  and  order  of 
the  world,  without  openly  justifying  their  proceeding 
before  the  world.  They  did  not  utter  a  cry  for  help  ;  for 
they  meant  to  help  themselves.  They  did  not  appeal  for 
moral  support ;  for  they  found  support  in  the  justice  of 
their  cause.  But,  deeming  themselves  and  their  cause 
worthy  of  respect,  instead  of  suing  for  admission  into  the 
family  of  nations,  they  at  once  took  their  44  equal  station 
among  the  powers  of  the  earth,”  with  a  Declaration  exhib¬ 
iting  tor  their  pedigree  the  inalienable  rights  of  man,  for 
their  patent  the  laws  of  nature  and  of  God,  and  for  their 
bearings  independence  supported  by  justice,  and  already 
baptized  with  fire  and  blood.  With  the  perfect  conscious¬ 
ness  of  “  the  rectitude  of  their  intentions,”  the  authors  of 
the  Declaration  appealed  44  to  the  Supreme  Judge  of  the 
world,”  and,  44  with  a  firm  reliance  on  the  protection  of 
Divine  Providence,”  staked  life,  fortune,  honor,  upon  their 
cause. 

The  Declaration,  as  I  have  said,  is  not  a  dissertation  on 
political  science  ;  yet  it  is  grounded  in  a  philosophy  of  man 
and  of  government  that  shows  its  authors  to  have  been 
well  trained  in  the  logic  of  thinking  and  of  expression  ; 
and  it .  even  opens  with  a  syllogism,  the  conclusion  of 
which  is  inevitable,  if  the  premises  of  the  first  and  middle 
terms  be  admitted  as  self-evident  truths.  In  the  first  Lec¬ 
ture  it  was  shown  that  the  Revolution  originated  in  a  con- 


00  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

test  for  existing  and  ancestral  rights  in  the  exercise  of 
local  government.  These  rights  are  all  assumed  in  the 
Declaration ;  are  woven  into  its  whole  texture  ;  but  they 
appear  under  the  form  of  charges  and  protests  against 
the  44  usurpations  ”  of  the  King  of  Great  Britain ;  while 
the  Declaration  goes  down  to  the  foundation  of  popu¬ 
lar  government  in  the  natural  rights  of  man,  and  in  the 
source  of  civil  government  and  its  proper  functions  and 
duties. 

44  We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident,  that  all  men 
are  created  equal ;  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator 
with  certain  inalienable  rights  ;  that  among  these  are  life, 
liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness ;  that,  to  secure  these 
rights,  governments  are  instituted  among  men,  deriving 
their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed  ;  that, 
whenever  any  form  of  government  becomes  destructive  of 
these  ends,  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  alter  or  to  abol¬ 
ish  it,  and  to  institute  a  new  government,  laying  its  foun¬ 
dation  on  such  principles,  and  organizing  its  powers  in 
such  form,  as  to  them  shall  seem  most  likely  to  effect  their 
safety  and  happiness.”  Couched  in  these  successive  assev¬ 
erations  is  the  syllogism  :  — 

(1.)  All  men  are  possessed  of  certain  inalienable  rights. 

(2.)  The  possessors  of  these  rights  form  or  assent  to 
governments  for  the  protection  of  the  same. 

(3.)  When  government  would  destroy  these  rights, 
their  possessors  may  destroy  the  government  in  order  to 
preserve  the  rights. 

Men  had  read  much,  thought  much,  learned  much, 
before  they  framed  these  propositions ;  and  their  lives  were 
consistent  with  their  logic.  We  have  done  justice  to  their 
sincerity  and  heroism  :  it  is  their  logic  that  now  concerns 
us ;  for  in  that  lay  the  germs  of  a  philosophy  that  should 
reconstruct  or  modify  modern  society. 

In  weighing  the  propositions  laid  down  in  the  Declara¬ 
tion,  one  should  consider  how  difficult  it  is  to  formulate  a 
principle,  and  especially  to  reduce  principles  of  politics 
and  ethics  to  axioms.  In  the  effort  to  compress  a  phi¬ 
losophy  into  a  proverb,  or  to  reduce  a  science  to  defini¬ 
tions,  the  mind  is  apt  to  fix  itself  upon  the  single  truth 
or  truths  before  it  with  an  intensity  of  concentration  that 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION. 


67 


excludes  correlative  or  qualifying  truths.  Hence  there 
is  a  tendency  to  over-statement,  or  one-sided  statement,  in 
tlm  first  announcement  of  a  discovery,  whether  in  physics, 
politics,  or  morals.  But  one  should  remember,  also,  that 
the  progress  of  knowledge  (as,  for  instance,  in  theology, 
in  psychology,  and  in  geology)  has  been  largely  through 
a  series  of  over-statements  and  counter-statements, — one 
principle  pushed  with  vehemence  till  it  met  its  correc¬ 
tive,  and,  by  the  attrition  of  controversy,  each  wore  the 
other,  down  to  its  just  proportions  ;  or  until  the  new  truth, 
entering  like  a  wedge,  forced  its  way  into  the  system  of 
truth  by  compelling  a  re-adjustment  of  the  relations  of 
things.  So  ot  these  doctrines  of  the  Declaration ;  viewed 
apart,  perhaps,  over-stated,  yet  containing  truths  that  re¬ 
quired  emphasis  to  gain  a  hearing,  and  wedging  ideas  into 
the  social  structure  that  compelled  a  re-adjustment  of  the 
political  elements  and  order  of  the  world.  The  fine  point 
of  that  wedge  was  this  tiny  sentence  of  five  words,  “ All 
men  are  created  equal :  ”  once  that  gains  entrance,  it  makes 
a  huge  crack  in  any  society  that  is  constructed  of  privi¬ 
leged  orders  in  Church  and  State ;  and,  if  well  driven  home, 
it.  must  reduce  all  artificial  privileges  to  the  level  of  natural 
gifts,  opportunities,  services,  attainments.  Radical  as  this 
may  seem  in  the  bald  statement  of  the  doctrine,  yet  the 
equality  set  forth  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  is 
not  a  radicalism  that  any  honest  man  should  be  afraid  of, 
since  it  is  grounded  in  the  highest  moral  reason,  is  directed 
to  the  highest  personal  and  social  happiness,  and  fenced 
about  with  justice  and  good-will. 

It  would  be  absurd  to  charge  upon  the  authors  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  the  absurdity  of  meaning 
that  all.  men  are,  or  could  be,  or  ought  to  be,  equal  in 
station,  in  capacity,  in  claim  to  consideration,  in  adaptation 
to  political  service  or  office,  or  even  in  the  possibility  of 
rising  to  the  same  degrees  in  honor,  power,  genius,  wealth, 
renown.  No  community  of  human  beings  could  exist  with 
such  equality,  and  perform  the  functions  of  life.  As  in 
the  physical  universe,  so  in  the  universe  of  mind :  “  There 
are  celestial  bodies,  and  bodies  terrestrial;  but  the  glory 
of  the  celestial  is  one,  and  the  glory  of  the  terrestrial  is 
another.  There  is  one  glory  of  the  sun,  and  another  glory 


68 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

of  the  moon,  and  another  glory  of  the  stars;  for  one  star 
differeth  from  another  star  in  glory.”  1  Nowhere  are  men 
brought  into  life  under  equal  conditions,  and  nowhere  do 
men  prove  themselves  of  equal  calibre  and  fibre  wlieie 
their  surroundings  are  proximately  the  same.  In  France 
it  does  not  make  men  equal  to  paint  out  the  old  royal 
and  imperial  names  of  streets  and  public  buildings,  and 
paint  over  these,  “ Liberte ,  Egalite ,  Fraternite  ;  ”  and  in  the 
United  States  it  does  not  make  men  equal  to  give  them 
universal  suffrage,  without  respect  to  nativity,  color,  race, 
or  condition.  Yet  there  is  a  profound  and  far-reaching 
sense  in  which  the  doctrine  of  the  Declaration  is  true, 
« that  all  men  are  created  equal;”  and  the  just  perception 
of  this  truth  gives  dignity  and  strength  to  the  national 
life.  This  equality  is  predicated  of  men  as  men ,  and  as 
created  beings  :  that  is  to  say,  in  the  contemplation  of  the 
Creator,  as  rational  and  moral  beings  they  are  of  equal 
worth  and  right  in  respect  of  the  use  of  the  powers,  and 
the  enjoyment  of  the  means  and  pleasures,  of  such  exist¬ 
ence.  In  this  view,  all  men  are  alike  “  endowed  by  their 
Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights;”  and  “among 
these  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.”  Who 
would  dare  deny  this  equality  of  universal  humanity  ? 
the  right  of  every  man  to  live  without  hinderance  or  ques¬ 
tion  from  others ;  the  right  to  freedom  in  the  use  of  his 
powers  of  body  and  mind,  —  freedom  to  make  as  much  as 
lies  within  him  of  life  and  its  opportunities,  to  make  the 
most  of  himself  as  a  man;  and  the  right  to  the  fair  pro¬ 
curement  and  enjoyment  of  all  the  happiness  within  his 
reach.  By  what  warrant  can  any  man  pretend,  to  be 
above  or  distinct  from  his  fellows  in  the  right  to  live,  the 
right  to  use  his  powers  of  living,  the .  right  to  enjoy  all 
the  good  he  can  fairly  attain?  These  rights  inhere  in  the 
nature  of  man,  and  are  “  inalienable.”  To  living  in  a  com¬ 
munity,  or  a  political  society,  it  is  essential  that  these 
rights  of  the  individual  be  in  some  measure  qualified  or 
curtailed  for  the  good  of  the  whole  ;  but  this  is  not  because, 
in  these  particulars,  any  of  the  community  can  claim  a 
right  superior  to  others  to  which  these  must  yield,  but 
simply  that  each  may  enjoy  his  own  natural  rights  to  the 

1  1  Cor.  xv.  40,  41. 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARxlTION. 


69 


fullest  extent  possible,  by  securing  to  every  other  the  like 
equitable  enjoyment  of  his  rights ;  that  is,  that  each  may 
enjoy  the  largest  freedom  and  happiness  possible  without 
encroaching  upon  the  rights  of  others,  or  being  encroached 
upon  by  others,  in  the  pursuit  of  their  equitable  freedom 
and  happiness. 

In  the  hour  of  shipwreck  no  man  can  say  to  another, 
“  The  life-boat  shall  be  kept  for  me ;  for  I  have  better 
right  to  live  than  thou.”  And  when  the  boat  is  tossing  in 
mid-ocean,  without  food  or  water,  and  the  dread  moment 
comes  when  one  must  die  to  save  the  rest,  it  is  not  birth, 
nor  rank,  nor  wealth,  nor  genius,  nor  office,  but  the  lot 
cast  among  men  as  equals,  that  determines  who  shall 
live,  and  who  shall  die.  On  board  the  ship  of  state,  though 
some  are  commanding  officers,  some  the  paying  passengers, 
and  some  the  working  crew,  all  are  equal  in  these  essen¬ 
tial  rights,  —  to  live,  to  be  free,  and  to  be  happy.  If  the 
ship  is  laboring,  and  must  be  lightened,  they  will  throw 
overboard  what  seems  to  them  fittest  and  handiest,  —  king, 
lords,  commons,  army,  church,  constitution,  plebiscitum  ; 
and,  if  she  must  go  down,  sauve  qui  pent  will  be  the  one 
law  and  cry  of  equalized  humanity.  The  equality  of  men 
as  taught  in  the  Declaration  lies  deeper  than  all  forms  of 
government.  It  teaches,  that,  in  the  contemplation  of  the 
State,  all  men  should  be  equal  as  objects  of  care  and  of 
right ;  that  the  State  should  care  for  all  alike,  and  be  just 
to  all  alike.  So  far  as  human  action  falls  within  the  scope 
of  civil  government,  laws  should  be  equal,  justice  equal, 
protection  equal,  opportunity  of  development  equal,  for  all. 

In  the  Declaration,  this  equality  was  asserted  against  the 
tyrannical  usurpations  of  the  king  and  parliament  of  Great 
Britain:  in  our- time  it  requires  to  be  asserted  against  the 
more  harsh  and  inexorable  tyranny  that  is  set  up  for  the 
laws  of  nature.  The  tyranny  of  men  can  be  resisted  and 
overthrown ;  but  the  tyranny  of  nature,  once  established, 
can  neither  be  resisted  nor  evaded.  The  Declaration  pro¬ 
claims  “that  all  men  are  created  equal,”  and  “that  they 
are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalienable 
rights.”  Their  rights  are  given  by  God,  and  therefore 
cannot  be  taken  away  by  men.  If,  then,  the  doctrine  of 
materialists  is  true,  if  there  is  no  Creator,  if  man  is  not  the 


70  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

loved  and  gifted  child  of  God,  then  one  great  pillar  of 
American  liberty  falls.  Agonizing  and  fecundating  forces, 
contesting  or  polarizing  atoms,  give  us  no  such  doctrine 
of  the  equality  of  men  in  the  right  to  be,  to  act,  to  enjoy. 
Whatever  may  be  true  of  other  species,  with  men  the 
44  struggle  for  existence  ”  does  not  issue  in  44  the  survival 
of  the  fittest,”  but  oftener  of  the  violent,  the  cunning,  the 
cruel.  By  that  law  there  is  no  basis  for  human  equality 
as  the  defiance  of  tyranny,  the  defence  of  liberty.  For 
this,  there  is  need  of  the  moral  perception  that  sees  in  the 
weakest  and  the  lowliest  the'  man,  created  by  God  for  life, 
.  for  freedom,  and  for  joy.  If  superstition  has  been  the 
handmaid  of  tyranny,  materialism  is  tyranny  itself.  I 
grant  that  weighty  arguments  for  the  rights  of  men,  for 
freedom  of  political  organization  and  local  government, 
may  be  derived  from  science,  philosophy,  experience, 
history ;  but  none  of  these  is  so  significant,  so  sweeping, 
so  conclusive,  nor  are  all  of  them  together  so  weighty  and 
enduring,  as  this  single  sentence,  44  All  men  are  created 
equal.”  Let  Americans  ever  stand  upon  that  one  sublime 
declaration,  and  hold  fast  the  liberty  that  is  there  given 
them  by  44  the  laws  of  nature  and  of  nature’s  God.” 

The  second  proposition  of  the  Declaration  is,  44  that,  to 
secure  these  rights,  governments  are  instituted  among  men, 
deriving  their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  gov¬ 
erned.”  Here,  more  especially,  must  one  keep  in  mind 
what  was  before  said  of  one-sidedness  of  statement  in  a 
document  intended  to  justify  a  particular  measure,  and  to 
emphasize  truths  that  were  the  refuge  and  defence  of  man¬ 
kind  against  despotic  power.  Thus  the  Declaration  speaks 
nowhere  of  duties,  but  only  of  rights ;  for  its  authors  held 
that  the  Colonies  had  discharged  their  duties  as  loyal  sub¬ 
jects  of  the  crown,  until  the  invasion  and  threatened 
annihilation  of  their  rights  compelled  them  to  throw  off 
their  allegiance.  It  was  rights  that  were  in  question, 
rights  that  were  in  jeopardy;  and  a  bold,  strong  assertion 
of  rights  was  what  the  case  demanded.  In  such  a  docu¬ 
ment  there  was  no  call  to  qualify  the  statement  of  rights 
by  a  statement  of  their  correlative  duties,  which  existed 
in  the  very  reason  of  tilings,  and  would  assert  themselves 
in  due  time. 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION. 


71 


So  of  the  statement  that  “  governments  derive  their 
just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed.”  The 
men  of  ’76  did  not  look  forward  to  a  time  when  that  same 
nation,  whose  independence  they  proclaimed  “  in  the  name 
and  by  the  authority  of  the  good  people  of  the  Colonies,” 
would  for  years  maintain,  by  force  of  arms,  its  government 
over  several  of  its  own  States  without  “  the  consent  of  the 
governed,”  and  this  with  every  ground  of  reason  and 
of  right :  they  did  not  even  look  forward  to  the  close  of 
the  war  of  independence,  when,  in  the  very  State  of 
Massachusetts,  which  led  on  the  war  against  British  taxa¬ 
tion,  a  rebellion  should  break  out  against  paying  debts  of 
the  United  States  contracted  for  the  war,  and  taxes  levied 
by  the  State  without  u  the  consent  of  the  governed;”  and 
Massachusetts  should  invoke  the  aid  of  Federal  troops  in 
putting  down  her  own  citizens,  and,  having  suppressed  the 
rebellion  with  a  strong  hand,  should  sentence  the  ring¬ 
leaders  to  death,  also  without  “the  consent  of these 
refractory  subjects.  In  a  word,  the  Congress  of  1776  did 
not  think  it  necessary  to  fortify  the  doctrines  of  the 
Declaration  against  such  abuses  and  absurdities  as  would 
lead  to  the  disintegration  of  society,  and  make  government 
the  prey  of  factions,  or  the  sport  of  individual  wills.  It 
was  not  individual,  personal  wills  that  they  were  thinking 
of  when  they  spoke  of  “  the  consent  of  the  governed. 
The  right  of  self-government  in  communities,  the  right  of 
representation  in  some  form  in  the  government,  the  right 
to  be  recognized  in  laying  taxes  and  framing  laws,  as 
parties  having  a  substantial  voice  in  the  same,  —  this  was 
the  right  that  the  British  Parliament  had  attempted  to 
wrest  from  them  by  an  arbitrary  government,  a  govern¬ 
ment  without  consent ;  and  therefore  they  laid  such 
stress  upon  governing  with  “  the  consent  of  the  governed,” 
without  reference  to  the  mode  of  government,  or  the 
manner  in  which  such  consent  should  be  ascertained. 
Interpreted  by  its  own  light,  this  second  proposition  of  the 
Declaration,  like  the  first,  contains  a  deep,  far-reaching 
truth,  —  a  truth  by  which  to  hold  governments  to  their 
place  and  duty  in  the  interest  of  mankind. 

Man  must  live  in  society.  In  a  solitary,  single-handed 
contest  with  wild  beasts,  with  untamed  nature,  and  even 


72  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

with  his  own  physical  wants,  it  would  fare  hard  with  him 
as  to  the  enjoyment  of  life,  liberty,  or  happiness ;  and,  in 
fact,  he  is  born  into  and  for  society,  and  there  he  must 
abide.  But,  while  the  existence  of  society  requires  some 
mutual  adjustment  of  the  rights  of  individuals,  only  by 
crime  against  society  can  one  forfeit  any  of  his  natural, 
personal  rights.  Crime  apart,  these  rights  are  inalienable ; 
and  the  independence  of  civil  society,  and  its  development 
in  culture,  require  that  these  rights  be  guaranteed  intact; 
that  every  man  shall  have  equal  security  with  any  other 
in  life,  freedom,  happiness,  and  shall  be  protected  and 
encouraged  in  making  the  most  of  his  powers,  capacities, 
and  opportunities  for  good. 

The  good  to  be  sought  in  civil  society  is  not,  as  Beccaria, 
Priestley,  and  the  Bentham  school  would  have  it,  an  affair 
of  the  multiplication-table,  u  the  greatest  happiness  of  the 
greatest  number,”  but  the  best  possible  facilities  for  hap¬ 
piness  placed  impartially  within  the  reach  of  all.  In  arti¬ 
ficial  rights,  the  public  good  may  sometimes  claim  the 
sacrifice  of  individual  interests;  as,  for  instance,  when  a 
right  of  way  is  taken  through  private  lands.  But  no  plea 
of  public  good  can  take  away  from  me  one  natural  right, 
so  long  as  I  am  guiltless  of  crime  against  the  public  wel¬ 
fare.  For  the  individual  voluntarily  to  sacrifice  life, 
freedom,  happiness,  to  some  public  end,  is  noble,  is  divine  ; 
but  for  the  majority  to  deprive  him  of  these  for  the  sake 
of  “  the  greatest  happiness  of  the  greatest  number  ”  is  an 
outrage  upon  that  which  is  noble  and  divine  in  man. 
Society  must  leave  to  its  every  member  his  equal  right  to 
life,  liberty,  happiness.  And  what  society  must  leave 
intact,  that  must  the  state  secure.  The  state  does  not 
exist  as  an  end  in  itself :  it  is  the  creation  of  society  for 
its  own  conservation.  Government  is  instituted  by  society, 
or  rather  it  emerges  from  society  as  a  condition  necessary 
to  its  own  existence.  With  society  grow  up  institutions, 
customs,  laws  ;  and  these,  in  time,  take  on  the  organic  form 
of  government.  In  every  political  society  there  is  a  latent 
sovereignty,  —  a  power  not  only  charged  with  exhibiting 
and  defending  the  society  against  other  powers  without,  but 
capable  of  maintaining  the  society  within  itself.  But  this 
power  must  be  used  for  the  well-being  of  the  society  whose 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION. 


73 


attribute  it  is.  Society  does  not  exist  for  the  state,  but 
tlie  state  for  society;  and  hence  government  is  bound 
to  secure  to  the  integral  members  of  society  those  rights 
upon  which,  as  we  have  seen,  society  itself  must  rest  for 
independence  and  culture.  For  the  preservation  of  these 
rights,  there  is  need  of  safety  and  order,  the  feeling  of 
security,  and  hence  need  of  government,  to  give  to  society 
security  and  permanence  in  and  through  the  inalienable 
rights  of  its  personal  constituents. 

The  correlative  duties  of  the  citizen  to  the  government 
belong  to  another  category :  we  are  here  concerned  with 
the  ends  and  obligations  of  civil  government.  And  we 
might  almost  say,  it  is  the  right  of  every  man  to  be  gov - 
erned  ;  i.e.,  to  be  under  law  and  authority  competent  and 
willing  to  maintain  all  just  rights,  and  thus  to  make  him 
secure  in  the  rights  that  are  justly  his.  In  social  anarchy, 
there  is  no  security  for  personal  rights;  and  it  is  of  the 
fundamental  philosophy  of  society,  that,  “  to  secure  these 
rights,  governments  are  instituted  among  men.”  Take 
away  that  conception,  and  by  what  pretext  under  heaven 
should  a  government  exist  ?  Could  men  owe  allegiance  to 
a  government  that  should  avowedly  disregard  their  right 
to  life,  liberty,  and  happiness,  and  seek  to  trample  out 
those  rights  by  despotic  power?  Would  society  ever 
purposely  establish  such  a  government,  or  willingly  recog¬ 
nize  its  authority  ?  Do  slaves  owe  allegiance  to  the  force 
that  enslaves  them  ?  The  second  proposition  of  the  Dec¬ 
laration  of  Independence  is  fundamental  to  human  society, 
—  that  governments  exist,  not  by  virtue  of  force,  nor  to 
maintain  the  power  and  rule  of  the  governing,  but  to 
secure  the  rights  of  the  governed. 

But  here  observe  the  admirable  wisdom  of  the  Declara¬ 
tion  in  its  specification  of  rights.  On  this  point,  the  omis¬ 
sions  of  the  document  are  almost  as  important  to  its  true 
interpretation  as  are  its  express  declarations.  Indeed,  in 
commenting  upon  certain  passages  in  the  paper  as  he  re¬ 
ported  it,  and  which  Congress  voted  to  strike  out,  Jeffer¬ 
son  makes  the  observation,  that  “  the  sentiments  of  men 
are  known  not  only  by  what  they  receive,  but  what  they 
reject  also  ;  ”  1  and  we  may  apply  this  rule  of  construction 

1  Jefferson’s  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  19. 


74  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


to  his  own  omissions  in  the  original  draught  of  the  Declara¬ 
tion.  This,  be  it  remembered,  is  a  political  document,  and 
deals  with  political  grievances  and  political  rights.  It  is 
a  document  designed  to  justify  to  the  world  and  to  pos¬ 
terity  the  act  of  a  people  in  declaring  themselves  a  distinct 
nation  ;  and  it  rests  that  action  upon  the  fact  that  men  are 
endowed  with  certain  inalienable  rights  which  government 
is  hound  to  secure,  hut  which  the  British  Government  had 
persistently  sought  to  destroy.  Now,  when  the  specifica¬ 
tion  of  these  rights  is  given,  there  is  no  mention,  no  hint 
even,  of  suffrage  or  of  office-holding  as  a  right  with  which 
man  is  endowed  bv  his  Creator.  Had  they  conceived  of 
suffrage  as  a  natural  right,  and  of  eligibility  to  office  as 
essential  to  human  equality,  and  that  a  just  government 
must  secure  these  rights,  then  surely,  in  laying  down  the 
“  inalienable  rights  ”  upon  which  all  righteous  government 
must  be  based,  they  would  not  have  omitted  these,  nor 
have  given  them  a  secondary  place  under  such  generalities 
as  life,  liberty,  and  happiness.  But  in  truth  they  had  no 
thought  of  classing  these  political  rights,  or  rather  politi¬ 
cal  trusts  and  privileges,  with  those  natural  rights  that 
are  in  all  men  equal  and  inalienable.  The  distinction 
between  these  two  classes  of  rights  —  rights  that  are 
natural  to  man  as  a  being,  and  rights  that  are  acquired  by 
certain  acts  or  conditions,  or  created  by  society  —  is  of 
supreme  importance  for  testing  certain  modern  theories  of 
popular  government  in  contrast  with  the  government 
actually  contemplated  by  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 
That  I  may  enjoy  my  natural  right  to  life,  liberty,  hap¬ 
piness,  it  is  not  necessary  that  I  should  in  any  way  rule 
over  you,  or  attempt  to  control  your  actions  by  authority. 
It  may,  indeed,  be  necessary  to  the  just  enjoyment  of  our 
several  rights,  both  yours  and  mine,  that  there  be  some 
competent  authority  above  us  both  to  cause  us  to  respect 
each  other’s  rights,  if  we  will  not  do  this  from  a  sense  of 
justice  and  honor;  but  such  an  authority  is  not  an  exer¬ 
cise  of  the  right  itself,  nor  a  part  of  the  natural  right,  but 
a  something  brought  in  from  without  to  secure  the  enjoy¬ 
ment  of  said  natural  right  under  the  conditions  and  limi¬ 
tations  proper  to  human  societ}^.  The  natural  rights 
enumerated  in  the  Declaration  require  nothing  but  oppor¬ 
tunity,  and,  for  the  most  part,  to  be  let  alone. 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION. 


75 


Quite  the  reverse  is  it  with  political  suffrage  and  politi¬ 
cal  office.  These,  in  their  very  nature,  imply  the  act  of 
governing  others,  and  assume  a  qualification  to  govern. 
By  what  test,  then,  or  evidence,  shall  we  find  in  man  a 
created  equality  in  and  for  governing,  answering  to  equali¬ 
ty  of  right  in  life,  liberty,  happiness  ?  Surely  it  is .  far 
from  a  “  self-evident  ”  truth  that  every  man  has  by  birth 
the  right  to  govern  his  fellows.  To  claim  this  for  all  men 
alike  is  absurd,  since  a  society  of  equal  governors  would 
make  actual  government  void.  For  each  or  any  to  claim 
this  for  himself  is  to  assume  the  prerogative  of  kingship. 
Government  is  a  science ;  and  to  govern  is  a  faculty,  a 
capacity,  an  art,  with  which  some  men  appear  to  be 
specially  endowed  by  nature,  to  which  others  may  attain 
by  study,  discipline,  experience,  but  for  which  most  men 
show  a  very  small  measure  either  of  endowment  or  of  apti¬ 
tude.  Since  the  very  act  of  governing,  even  to  the  extent 
of  participation  in  government  by  suffrage,  affects  society 
in  its  every  interest,  and  may  put  its  every  interest,  and 
its  very  existence,  in  jeopardy,  no  one  can  claim  it  as  his 
right  to  govern,  unless  he  can  show  his  competence  to  gov¬ 
ern,  to  such  extent,  at  least,  as  he  demands  to  participate  in 
government. 

We  have  seen,  that,  in  the  political  society,,  each  man 
retains  his  equal  natural  rights,  and  that  society  is  bound  to 
conserve  these  impartially  for  all  its  members ;  but  in  the 
state,  which  is  the  governing  function  of  society,  no  man 
can  have  a  right,  except  upon  the  basis  of  duty  accom¬ 
plished  toward  the  state  in  fitting  himself  intellectually, 
morally,  practically,  to  the  best  of  his  ability,  for  its  ser¬ 
vice.  Since  government  emerges  from  society,  and  is  for 
the  behoof  of  society,  it  is  for  society  to  determine  in 
what  form,  and  by  what  persons,  it  shall  be  governed  ;  and 
each  political  society  must  determine  this  for  itself,  in  its 
own  way.  Hence  there  is  no  natural  right  to  rule,  nor  to 
vote ;  but  each  and  every  form  of  participation  in  the 
state-function  or  governing-power  of  society .  is  a  trust,  a 
privilege,  conferred  or  conceded  by  society  itself,  subject 
to  such  conditions  as  society  may  impose.  Here  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  “  the  greatest  happiness  of  the  greatest  number,” 
which  cannot  be  maintained  in  the  sphere  of  purely  natu¬ 
ral  rights,  may  have  its  legitimate  application. 


76  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

As  a  physical  or  sentient  being,  man  is  entitled  to  life ; 
as  a  being  of  intelligence  and  will,  he  is  entitled  to  liberty ; 
as  a  being  of  moral  affections,  hopes,  desires,  sympathies, 
he  is  entitled  to  happiness :  these  are  natural  rights  with 
which  he  is  endowed  by  his  Creator,  and  for  which  he  is  in 
no  way  obliged  to  his  fellows.  But  man  is  also  a  political 
being,  adapted  to  live  in  society  and  under  government ; 
and  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  him  in  that  relation 
except  as  owing  duties  to  his  fellows,  and  deriving  benefits 
from  his  fellows ;  so  that  every  right  that  he  acquires  as  a 
member  of  political  society  is  of  the  nature  of  an  obliga¬ 
tion  to  the  members  in  common  of  the  same  society. 
Hence  such  rights  are  distinct  in  their  ground  and  tenure 
from  natural  rights,  and  can  never  be  brought  within  the 
same  category. 

No  political  philosopher  of  recent  times  has  gone  farther 
than  John  Stuart  Mill  in  maintaining  natural  liberty,  or 
“the  sovereignty  of  the  individual  over  himself.”  Yet 
Mill  has  also  shown,  with  his  accustomed  clearness,  that 
there  is  a  “  rightful  limit  ”  to  that  sovereignty,  at  which 
“the  authority  of  society”  begins.  “Every  one,”  says 
Mill,  “  who  receives  the  protection  of  society,  owes  a 
return  for  the  benefit ;  and  the  fact  of  living  in  society 
renders  it  indispensable  that  each  should  be  bound  to 
observe  a  certain  line  of  conduct  towards  the  rest.  This 
conduct  consists,  first,  in  not  injuring  the  interests  of  one 
another,  or  rather  certain  interests,  which,  either  by  ex¬ 
press  legal  provision  or  by  tacit  understanding,  ought  to  be 
considered  as  rights  ;  and,  secondly,  in  each  person  bearing 
his  share  (to  be  fixed  on  some  equitable  principle)  of  the 
labors  and  sacrifices  incurred  for  defending  the  society  or 
its  members  from  injury  and  molestation.  These  condi¬ 
tions  society  is  justified  in  enforcing,  at  all  cost,  to  those 
who  endeavor  to  withhold  fulfilment.”  Nor  is  this  all  that 
society  may  do.  “  If  one  has  infringed  the  rules  necessary 
for  the  protection  of  his  fellow-creatures,  individually  or 
collectively,  the  evil  consequences  of  his  acts  do  not 
then  fall  on  himself,  but  on  others  ;  and  society,  as  the 
protector  of  all  its  members,  must  retaliate  on  him,  must 
inflict  pain  on  him  for  the  express  purpose  of  punishment, 
and  must  take  care  that  it  be  sufficiently  severe.” 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION. 


77 


Mill  goes  on  to  argue  u  that  misapplied  notions  of  liberty 
are  a  real  obstacle  to  tlie  fulfilment  by  the  State  of  its 
duties.”  He  asks,  “  Is  it  not  almost  a  self-evident  axiom, 
that  the  State  should  require  and  compel  the .  education, 
up  to  a  certain  standard,  of  every  human  being  who  is 
born  its  citizen  ?  ”  And  he  does  not  scruple  to  say  that 
« the  laws  which,  in  many  countries  on  the  Continent, 
forbid  marriage,  unless  the  parties  can  show  that  they  have 
the  means  of  supporting  a  family,  do  not  exceed  the 
legitimate  powers  of  the  State  ;  and,  whether  such  laws  be 
expedient  or  not,  they  are  not  objectionable  as  violations 
of  liberty.”1 

Without  following  Mr.  Mill  in  all  his  specific  applica¬ 
tions,  we  must  agree  that  this  large  concession  to  the 
rights  and  powers  of  the  State  by  so  sturdy  a  champion  ot 
individualism  and  so  acute  a  philosopher,  and  especially 
his  insisting  that  the  State  should  not  be  impeded  in  its 
duties  by  misapplied  notions  of  the  liberty  of  the  citizen, 
points  to  a  radical  distinction  in  fact  and  kind  between 
natural  rights,  and  rights  originating  in,  or  conferred  by, 
society.  That  Mr.  Jefferson  perceived  this  distinction, 
and  therefore  purposely  omitted  all  mention,  in  the  Declara¬ 
tion  of  Independence,  of  voting  or  ruling  from  liis  enume¬ 
ration  of  the  rights  with  which  all  men  are  endowed  by 
their  Creator,  is  plain  from  his  correspondence.  Thus,  in 
his  letter  to  Mr.  Coray,  dated  Oct.  31,  1823,  after  forty- 
seven  years’  experience  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Declara¬ 
tion,  in  recommending  a  government  for  Greece,  Mr.  Jef¬ 
ferson  says,  “  The  equal  rights  of  man,  and  the  happiness 
of  every  individual,  are  now  acknowledged  to  be  the  only 
legitimate  objects  of  government.  Modern  times  have  the 
signal  advantage,  too,  of  having  discovered  the  only  device 
by  which  these  rights  can  be  secured  ;  to  wit,  government 
by  the  people,  acting  not  in  person,  but  by  representatives 
chosen  by  themselves ;  that  is  to  say,  by  every  man  of 
ripe  years  and  sane  mind  who  either  contributes  by  his 
purse  or  person  to  the  support  of  his  country.”  Could 
any  thing  be  clearer  or  wiser  than  this  statement  ?  Imme¬ 
diate  participation  in  the  government  by  each  and  every 
man  as  a  man  is  not  at  all  necessary  to  the  idea  of  popu- 

1  On  Liberty,  by  John  Stuart  Mill,  pp.  134,  142,  189,  194. 


78  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


lar  government.  The  people  govern  by  representatives  ; 
and  this  government  by  the  people  is  not  itself  one  of  the 
equal  rights  of  man,  but  is  a  u  device  by  which  these  rights 
can  be  secured.”  Nor  has  every  man  an  equal  right  to 
choose  representatives  in  this  government  by  the  people  : 
for,  according  to  Mr.  Jefferson,  he  must  be  of  mature  age, 
and  capable  of  forming  a  sound  judgment ;  and  he  must 
serve  his  country  with  his  purse  or  his  person ;  or,  as  he 
puts  it  in  another  letter,  “  among  the  men  who  either  pay 
or  fight  for  their  country,  no  line  of  right  can  be  drawm.” 1 
This  political  right  of  sharing  in  the  government  requires 
evidence  of  capacity,  and  proof  of  service  rendered,  or  duty 
done.  It  is  not,  therefore,  a  natural  right,  but  a  right  or 
trust  fixed  by  society  upon  its  own  terms.  Mr.  Jefferson 
argues  truly,  that  it  is  safe  to  commit  this  trust  largely  to 
the  people  ;  but  he  never  loses  sight  of  the  fact,  that  it  is 
a  trust  to  which  are  appended  certain  qualifications  and 
conditions.  Speaking  of  juries,  he  says,  “  The  people, 
especially  when  moderately  instructed,  are  the  only  safe, 
because  the  only  honest,  depositaries  of  the  public  rights, 
and  should,  therefore,  be  introduced  into  the  administration 
of  them  in  every  f  unction  to  which  they  are  sufficient .”  The 
words  that  I  have  emphasized  qualify  the  right  or  trust 
by  the  capacity  or  sufficiency;  and  Jefferson  shows  his 
meaning  by  urging  Mr.  Coray  to  prepare  his  countrymen 
for  independence  “  by  improving  their  minds,  and  quali¬ 
fying  them  for  self-government.” 

In  a  letter  of  May  8,  1825,  to  Henry  Lee,  Jefferson 
states  this  to  have  been  the  object  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence:  “Not  to  find  out  new  principles  or  new 
arguments  never  before  thought  of,  not  merely  to  say 
tilings  which  had  never  been  said  before,  but  to  place 
before  mankind  the  common  sense  of  the  subject,  in  terms 
so  plain  and  firm  as  to  command  their  assent,  and  to  jus¬ 
tify  ourselves  in  the  independent  stand  we  are  compelled 
to  take.”  He  admits  that  the  leaders  of  the  Revolution 
were  novices  in  the  science  of  government,  by  which  he 
intends  that  they  had  not,  in  advance,  framed  a  system  of 
independent  government ;  and  it  is  evident,  that,  at  the 
date  of  the  Declaration,  they  had  not  decided  what  form 

1  To  John  Hampden  Pleasants,  April  19,  1824  :  Works,  vol.  vii.  345. 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION. 


79 


of  government  they  should  adopt.  Those  who  now  regard 
suffrage  as  one  of  the  natural,  inalienable  rights  of  man, 
can  find  no  warrant  for  this  doctrine  in  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  nor  in  the  writings  of  the  apostle  of 
American  democracy,  Thomas  Jefferson.  In  his  view, 
suffrage  was  a  prerogative  of  society,  to  be  intrusted  to 
individuals  competent  and  worthy  to  exercise  it.  Does 
any  ask,  How  comes  society  by  this  prerogative  ?  The 
answer  is,  By  the  right  and  necessity  of  caring  for  its 
own  existence.  History,  philosophy,  experience,  teach 
but  one  lesson;  and  no  amount  of  theorizing  can  ever 
make  it  otherwise  than  that,  in  point  of  fact,  in  every 
political  society,  they  who  can  rule  will  and  must  rule, 
though  bound  to  rule  with  equal  justice  toward  all.  This 
is  nature,  equity,  common  sense,  and  leads  to  true  repub¬ 
licanism. 

Mr.  Jefferson’s  theory  of  the  best  government  was,  that 
the  actual  governing  power  should  be  in  the  hands  of  the 
few  who  by  nature  and  by  training  have  both  character 
and  capacity  for  administering  affairs ;  and  these  he  des¬ 
ignates  the  u  natural  aristocracv.”  In  an  elaborate  letter 
to  John  Adams,1  —  more  an  essay  than  a  letter,  —  written 
after  both  had  filled  the  office  of 'President,  Jefferson  says, 
“I  agree  with  you,  that  there  is  a  natural  aristocracy 
among  men.  The  grounds  of  this  are  virtue  and  talents. 
.  .  .  This  natural  aristocracy  I  consider  as  the  most 
precious  gift  of  nature  for  the  instruction,  the  trusts, 
and  government  of  society.”  Observe  here  how  far  Jef¬ 
ferson  was  from  accounting  all  men  equal  to  the  function 
of  governing,  or  endowed  for  this  by  the  Creator,  and  enti¬ 
tled  to  it  as  a  personal  and  inalienable  right.  “  An  artifi¬ 
cial  aristocracy,  founded  on  wealth  and  birth,  without 
either  virtue  or  talents,”  he  said,  “  is  a  mischievous  ingre¬ 
dient  in  government;  and  provision  should  be  made  to 
prevent  its  ascendency.”  But  an  aristocracy  of  nature, 
born  to  rule,  Jefferson  believed  in,  as  he  had  reason  to ; 
“  and  indeed,”  as  he  says,  “  it  would  have  been  inconsist¬ 
ent  in  creation  to  have  formed  man  for  the  social  state, 
and  not  to  have  provided  virtue  and  wisdom  enough  to 
manage  the  concerns  of  the  society.  May  we  not  even 

1  Oct.  28,  1813 :  Works,  vi.  223. 


80 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


sa y,  that  that  form  of  government  is  the  best  which  pro¬ 
vides  the  most  effectually  for  a  pure  selection  of  these 
natural  aristoi  into  the  offices  of  government  ? 

This  selection  for  office  of  the  persons  qualified  and 
designated  by  nature  to  rule  he  would  leave  to  the  body 
of  the  people,  as  being  entitled  to  a  voice  in  the  composi¬ 
tion  of  their  government,  and  as  likely,  in  their  own 
interest,  to  select  good  and  true  men  for  this  trust.  He 
would  u  leave  to  the  citizens  the  free  election  and  separa¬ 
tion  of  the  aristoi  from  the  pseudo-aristoi ,  of  the  wheat 
from  the  chaff.  In  general,  they  will  elect  the  really  good 
and  wise.  In  some  instances,  wealth  may  corrupt,  and 
birth  blind  them,  but  not  in  sufficient  degree  to  endanger 
the  society.”  It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  does  not  confound  political  powers  with 
natural  rights,  the  right  of  living  and  enjoying  life  with 
the  right  of  ruling.1 

To  point  the  distinction  between  the  rights  with  which 
man  is  endowed  by  his  Creator,  and  rights  that  are  in¬ 
trusted  or  conceded  to  him  by  the  political  society  of  which 
he  is  a  member,  we  may  refer  conclusively  to  the  trial  by 
jury.  This  is  regarded  as  the  very  kernel  of  the  Magna 
Charta  of  King  John,  which  makes  that  instrument  the 
palladium  of  every  Englishman  in  respect  of  life,  liberty, 
and  property,  —  the  possession  of  which  last  is,  to  most 
men,  a  synonyme  for  happiness.  The  Charter  declares, 
“  No  freeman  shall  be  taken  or  imprisoned,  or  be  disseized 
of  his  freedom  or  liberties  or  free  customs,  or  be  outlawed 
or  exiled,  or  any  otherwise  damaged,  nor  will  we  pass  upon 

1  Some  years  ago.  in  an  address  to  the  Phi  Beta  Kappa  Society  at  New 
Haven,  on  How  to  build  a  Nation,  I  argued  for  a  “guild  of  the  culti¬ 
vated’’  to  crown  a  republican  society,  and  give  order  and  beauty  to  its 
affairs.  The  objection,  that  this  would  be  to  create  an  aristocracy,  I  met  by 
pointing  out  that  the  Church  of  Christ  is  the  most  presumptuous  aristoc¬ 
racy  under  heaven,  claiming  to  be  composed  of  “  the  saints,’  “the  holy, 
“the  sons  of  God,”  and  to  constitute  upon  earth  a  “  kingdom  of  heaven, 
above  all  other  kingdoms.  But,  at  the  same  time,  the  Church  is  the  one 
example  on  earth  of  a  pure  and  ennobling  democracy:  for  this  hierarchy 
of  God  is  open  to  every  man  to  enter  it,  simply  by  purifying  and  ennobling 
his  own  character;  and,  once  within  its  pale,  all  are  brethren.  So  should  it 
be  with  the  governing  hierarchy  in  the  republic,  —  open  to  all  men  through 
conditions  of  intelligence,  character,  worth,  that  would  make  them  per¬ 
sonally  nobler,  and  at  the  same  time  lift  them  to  the  noblest  sphere  of 
equality.  Such  a  “guild  of  the  cultivated”  Avould,  I  think,  stand  higher 
than  Jefferson’s  “  natural  aristocracy,”  and  yet  open  a  wider  or  more 
democratic  range  of  selection  of  the  instruments  of  power. 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION. 


81 


him,  nor  send  upon  him,  but  by  lawful  judgment  of  his 
peers,  or  by  the  law  of  the  land;”  and  this  promise  Mr. 
Hallam  styles  “  the  keystone  of  English  liberty.”  1 

In  the  Declaration  of  Rights  put  forth  by  the  first 
Continental  Congress  in  1774,  it  was  resolved,  “That  the 
respective  Colonies  are  entitled  to  the  common  law  of 
England,  and  more  especially  to  the  great  and  inestimable 
privilege  of  being  tried  by  their  peers  of  the  vicinage 
according  to  the  course  of  that  law.”  The  Declaration  of 
Independence  charged  it  as  a  crime  upon  the  King  of  Eng¬ 
land,  that,  in  many  cases,  he  “  had  deprived  the  colonists 
of  the  benefits  of  trial  by  jury.”  And  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  provides,  that,  “  in  all  criminal  prosecu¬ 
tions,  the  accused  shall  enjoy  the  right  to  a  speedy  and 
public  trial  by  an  impartial  jury  of  the  state  and  district 
wherein  the  crime  shall  have  been  committed ;  ”  and  also, 
that  in  suits  at  common  law,  where  the  value  in  contro¬ 
versy  shall  exceed  twenty  dollars,  the  right  of  trial  by  jury 
shall  be  preserved.”  But  this  much-vaunted  right,  the 
chosen  defence  of  life  and  liberty  against  tyranny  and 
injustice,  has  none  of  the  qualities  that  mark  life  and 
liberty  as  natural  and  inalienable  rights.  The  keystone 
of  liberty  it  well  may  be ;  yet  trial  by  jury  is  no  part  of 
man’s  natural  liberty,  —  the  palladium  of  natural  rights, 
but  not  itself  one  of  those  rights.  What  is  there,  for 
instance,  in  nature,  to  impart  the  sanctity  of  justice  to  the 
deliberation  of  twelve  men  and  the  unanimity  of  their 
verdict,  rather  than  to  a  majority  of  fifteen  jurors,  as  in 
Scotland?  Moreover,  experience  has  shown  that  juries 
may  be  biassed,  bribed,  intimidated,  and  may  do  the 
grossest  injustice  to  the  accused,  or  the  highest  injury  to 
society  and  the  laws.  What  is  wanted  for  the  safety  of 
the  innocent,  and  the  punishment  of  the  guilty,  is  knowl¬ 
edge,  wisdom,  experience,  and  the  spirit  of  justice,  in  the 
administrators  of  the  law ;  and  hence,  in  the  United  States 
as  well  as  in  Great  Britain,  there  is  a  growing  disposition, 
in  many  cases,  to  dispense  with  a  jury,  and  trust  to  arbitra¬ 
tion,  or  to  the  decision  of  a  judge,  subject  to  appeal.  But 
that  is  no  natural  right  that  can  thus  change  its  basis 
through  experience  or  expediency :  it  is  a  contrivance  for 

1  Middle  Ages,  b.  ii.  cviii. 


g2  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

the  protection  of  individual  rights  through  the  machinery 
of  social  organization ;  and,  since  all  men  possess  certain 
inalienable  rights,  they  have  also  a  right  to  the  best  insti¬ 
tutions  for  securing  those  rights.  As  to  the  jury,  Jefferson 
found  in  this  contrivance  almost  a  democratic  participation 
in  the  judicial  function  of  government,  —  a  sort  of  revival 
of  the  Teutonic  Gemeinde,  in  which  every  freeman  might 
be  a  judge.1  Yet  how  gladly  would  the  average  citizen 
escape  being  summoned  from  his  business  or  his  pleasures 
to  fulfil  his  inalienable  duty  of  hearing  causes,  and  sitting 
in  judgment  upon  the  actions  of  his  fellows!  But  men  do 
not  thus  lightly  throw  away  their  natural  rights.  In 
truth,  provisions  for  ruling  and  judging  are  of  society,  and 
must  be  ordained  by  each  political  society  in  its  own  way. 
In  some  societies,  the  rule  will  be  that  of  superior  intel¬ 
ligence  or  endowment;  in  some,  of  power;  in  some,  of 
conceded  privilege  or  custom ;  and,  in  others,  the  rule  of 
the  majority.  Mr.  Jefferson  placed  it  in  the  last. 
“  Where,”  he  asks,  “  shall  we  find  the  origin  of  just 
powers,  if  not  in  the  majority  of  the  society?  Will  it  be 
in  the  minority?  or  in  an  individual  of  that  minority?” 
This  is  the  key  to  the  statement  of  the  Declaration,  that 
governments  “  derive  their  just  powers  from  the  consent 
of  the  governed.”  He  was  not  thinking  . of  a  poll  of  equal 
rights,  that  each  individual  as  an  u  inalienable  ”  voter 
might  “  consent  ”  to  be  governed  thus  or  so,  but  of  the 
community,  the  political  society,  in  some  method  of  its 
own,  framing,  commissioning,  or  consenting  to,  the  govern¬ 
ment  under  which  it  should  live ;  and,  in  this  view  of  its 
meaning,  this  statement  of  the  Declaration,  like  those  that 
precede  it,  is  also  true,  and  of  deep  and  far-reaching  sig¬ 
nificance  for  governments  and  for  mankind. 

It  was  by  a  vote  of  both  houses  of  Parliament  in  1688, 
setting  a  precedent  for  the  Philadelphia  Congress  of  1TT6, 
that  the  throne  of  Great  Britain  was  declared  vacant ;  for- 

1  Yet,  curiously  enough,  Jefferson’s  own  doctrine  of  human  rights  in 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  did  away  with  the  fundamental  argument 
upon  which  the  jury  had  stood  as  a  defence  of  persons  and  rights.  So  long 
as  privileged  classes  exist  in  society,  there  is  a  savor  of  democratic  freedom 
in  the  rule  that  every  man  shall  be  tried  by  his  peers.  But,  in  the  republic, 
class  distinctions  are  done  away,  and,  as  before  the  law,  every  man  is  the 
peer  of  every  other.  Hence  a  democracy  deprives  the  jury  of  its  old-time 
distinction  as  “the  palladium  of  liberty.” 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION. 


83 


asmuch  as  King  James  II.  “had  endeavored  to  subvert  the 
constitution  o±  the  kingdom  by  breaking  the  original  con¬ 
tract  between  the  king  and  the  people,  and  had  violated 
the  fundamental  laws,  ’  and  moreover,  “by  withdrawing* 
himself  out  of  the  kingdom,  had  abdicated  the  govern¬ 
ment.  Lut  it  was  only  a  very  small  majority  of  the 
same  Parliament  that  voted  to  offer  the  crown  to  William, 
Prince  of  Orange  ;  yet,  to  this  day,  Great  Britain  has  con¬ 
sented  to  be  governed  by  the  settlement  made  at  the  close 
of  the  Revolution.  An  assembly  hurriedly  chosen  and 
irregularly  convened  at  Bordeaux,  representing  at  best 
but  a  part  of  France,  and  deputed  for  the  one  business  of 
making  a  peace,  and  ridding  the  capital  and  country  of 
an  enemy,  - — this  extemporized  assembly  raised  an  army, 
fought  against  and  seized  Paris,  transferred  the  capital  to 
\  eisailles,  made  a  treaty  of  peace,  raised  a  loan,  paid  an 
enormous  debt,  emancipated  the  nation,  exercised  sover- 
eignty  in  every  form,  and  though  composed  of  legitimists, 
Orleanists,  imperialists,  and  republicans  of  every  grade, 
at  last  compromised  upon  a  government  compounded  of  a 
person,  a  name,  and  a  constitution  ;  and  this  government 
exercises  its  just  powers  of  law  and  order  with  the  acqui¬ 
escence  of  France,  —  “  the  consent  of  the  governed.” 
Sometimes  too,  where  a  government  originates  in  usurpa¬ 
tion,  or  where  its  measures  at  first  seem  arbitrary,  the  ac¬ 
quiescence  of  the  people  after  the  fact,  their  condoning  the 
irregularity  by  partaking  of  its  fruits,  gives  to  the  gov¬ 
ernment  a  color  of  just  power  and  of  popular  sanction. 
In  short,  every  government  is  bound  to  keep  constantly  in 
view  the  best  good  of  the  totality  of  its  subjects,  to  iden¬ 
tify  itself  with  the  welfare  of  the  society  over  which  it 
presides,  to  be  mindful  of  the  wants  and  wishes  of  the 
political  community  whose  organ  it  is,  to  set  the  people 
in  its  common-weal  before  and  above  the  State  in  its  per¬ 
sonnel,  to  guard  the  rights  of  all  with  an  impartial  hand ; 
and  only  so  far  as  a  government  is  animated  by  this  spirit, 
and  acts  for  these  ends,  are  its  powers  just,  or  can  it,  in 
political  ethics,  claim  the  right  to  be. 

I  he  attachment  of  a  people  to  their  government  may 
be  variable  ;  their  sentiment  toward  officers  and  policy 
may  change  with  men  and  measures ;  their  loyalty  may 


34  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

be  that  of  enthusiastic  devotion,  of  calm  acquiescence,  or 
of  patient  endurance:  but  there  inheres  in  every  body 
politic  a  latent  right  of  revolution;  and,  so  long  as  the 
people  do  not  revive  this  right,  the  government  de  facto 
is  presumed  to  hold  its  powers  with  “  the  consent  ot  the 

TPis  rio'ht  of  revolution  is  the  third  point  made  by  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  ;  or,  rather,  it  is  the  conclu¬ 
sion  of  its  famous  syllogism.  The  fact  of  revolution,  or 
of  repudiating  an  existing  government,  and  setting  up 
another  in  its  stead,  was  that  which  the  Declaration  was 
framed  to  justify.  The  first  proposition  being  that  all 
men  are  created  equal,  and  endowed  by  their  Creator  with 
certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are  me,  liberty, 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness  ;  and  the  second  proposition 
being,  that,  to  secure  these  rights,  governments  are  insti¬ 
tuted  among  men,  deriving  their  just  powers  from  the 
consent  of  the  governed,  —  the  conclusion  is  reached,  that, 
u  whenever  any  form  of  government  becomes  destructive 
of  these  ends,  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  alter  or  to 
abolish  it,  and  to  institute  a  new  government,  laying  its 
foundation  on  such  principles,  and  organizing  its  powers 
in  such  form,  as  to  them  shall  seem  most  likely  to  ettect 
their  safety  and  happiness.”  Observe  the  unimpassioned 
dignity  of  this  statement.  It  has  been  alleged  that  the 
style  of  the  Declaration  betrays  the  impetuosity  of  youth; 
but  though,  at  the  date  of  its  composition,  Jefferson  was 
only  thirty-two  years  of  age,  and  had  not  quite  toned 
down  his  rhetoric,  yet  in  this  passage  of  the  document  lie 
exhibits  that  philosophic  caution  and  precision  which  won 
for  him  in  after-life  the  title,  “  the  sage  of  Monticello. 
Precisely  at  the  point  where  the  European  revolutionist 
of  recent  type  would  have  exploded  in  fiery  declamation, 
Jefferson  is  as  calm,  clear,  and  precise  as  if  he  were  writ- 
in0’  his  scientific  essay  on  a  standard  of  uniform  length, 
or°  that  on  the  method  of  obtaining  fresh  water  from 
salt.  The  radical  change  of  government  is  to  be  sought 
only  in  the  last  resort,  when  government  has  become 
destructive  of  the  fundamental  rights  of  society,  for  the 
security  of  which  it  was  established ;  and  then  it  may 
be  altered  or  removed  only  for  the  purpose  of  erecting 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION. 


85 


some  better  structure  for  the  safety  and  happiness  of 
the  people.  And,  as  if  this  cautious  statement  of  the 
right  of  revolution  were  not  enough,  further  cautions  are 
given  as  to  the  application  of  a  right,  which  is  some¬ 
what  analogous  to  the  right  of  exploding  gunpowder  to 
arrest  a  conflagration :  “  Prudence,  indeed,  will  dictate 
that  governments  long  established  should  not  be  changed 
for  light  and  transient  causes  ;  and  accordingly  all  expe¬ 
rience  hath  shown  that  mankind  are  more  disposed  to 
suffer  while  evils  are  sufferable  than  to  right  themselves 
by  abolishing  the  forms  to  which  they  are  accustomed. 
But  when  a  long  train  of  abuses  and  usurpations,  pursuing 
invariably  the  same  object,  evinces  a  design  to  reduce 
them  under  absolute  despotism,  it  is  their  right,  it  is  their 
duty,  to  throw  off  such  government,  and  to  provide  new 
guards  for  their  future  security.  Such  has  been  the 
patient  sufferance  of  these  Colonies  ;  and  such  is  now  the 
necessity  which  constrains  them  to  alter  their  former  sys¬ 
tems  of  government.” 

The  abstract  right  of  revolution  I  do  not  require  to 
argue.  This  is  to  society  what  the  right  of  self-defence 
is  to  the  individual.  Since  government  is  a  function  of 
society,  if,  through  injustice  and  usurpation,  the  govern¬ 
ment  becomes  an  unbearable  oppression,  destructive  of  the 
ends  for  which  society  exists,  there  must  rest  in  society, 
which  gives  being  and  form  to  the  state,  an  ultimate  right 
to  redress  itself  by  displacing,  or  otherwise  changing,  the 
falsified  government  in  the  interest  of  a  true  and  righteous 
ordering  of  the  state.  But  this  right,  more,  perhaps,  than 
any  other,  needs  to  be  qualified  and  restricted  in  the  inter¬ 
est  of  society  itself.  So  great  are  the  calamities  of  civil 
war,  so  frightful  the  horrors  of  anarchy,  that  the  overturn¬ 
ing  of  government  by  violence  may  be  rightfully  attempted 
only  for  the  ends  of  justice,  for  the  higher  good.  There 
must  be  in  it  that  which  appeals  to  the  moral  sense  as  just 
and  right  to  warrant  a  movement  that  may  deluge  the 
land  with  blood,  and  send  mourning  into  every  house. 
This  point,  as  we  have  seen,  is  guarded  in  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  which  makes  the  right  of  revolution 
hinge  upon  the  safety  and  happiness  of  the  people  when 
these  are  in  peril  of  destruction  from  the  existing  govern¬ 
ment. 


g0  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

But  even  with  right  motive  upon  its  side,  and  a  high 
and  worthy  end  in  view,  a  revolution  should  not  he  ven¬ 
tured  upon  merely  to  get  rid  of  annoyances  or  grievances 
that  reach  not  to  the  core  of  society,  and  that  time  might 
relieve  or  allay,  but  to  redress  accumulated  and  unbeara¬ 
ble  wrongs  for  which  there  seems  no  other  remedy.  This 
rule,  likewise,  is  fully  recognized  in  the  Declaration :  no 
established  government  should  be  violently  changed  u  for 
light  and  transient  causes  ;  ”  but  the  people  should  rather 
u  suffer  while  evils  are  sufferable.”  Abuses  and  usurpa¬ 
tions  protracted  and  undisguised,  tending  always  to 
destroy  the  rights  of  the  subject,  and  bring  him  hope¬ 
lessly  under  despotic  power,  —  these  justify  and  demand  a 
revolution  as  their  remedy.  Yet  even  at  this  point,  when 
there  is  every  legal  and  moral  justification  for  recourse  to 
arms,  it  may  be  well  to  pause,  and  see  if  there  be  a  fair 
prospect  of  success  to  warrant  the  fearful  responsibility  of 
attempting  it.  As  Lord  Brougham  has  pithily  said,  “  The 
evils  must  have  become  intolerable  before  the  resistance  is 
to  be  attempted  :  the  parties  whose  rights  are  invaded 
must  first  exhaust  every  peaceful  and  orderly  and  lawful 
means  of  obtaining  redress.  An  insurrection  is  only  to  be 
justified  by  the  necessity  which  leaves  no  alternative ; 
and  the  probability  of  success  is  to  be  weighed,  in  order 
that  a  hopeless  attempt  may  not  involve  the  community  in 
distress  and  confusion.”  Every  one  of  these  qualifying 
conditions  was  fully  met  in  the  state  of  the  American 
Colonies  when  they  put  forth  their  Declaration  of  Inde¬ 
pendence.  They  were  not  revolutionists  in  theory,  but 
defenders  of  society,  and  restorers  of  humanity,  in  funda¬ 
mental  rights.  Indeed,  what  is  commonly  conceived  of  as 
a  political  right  of  revolution,  I  prefer  to  characterize  as 
the  moral  duty  of  resistance  to  tyranny  and  wrong,  even 
to  the  extent  of  breaking  up  the  whole  established  order 
of  things,  —  a  duty  which,  when  the  case  arises,  men  must 
be  ready  to  perform,  or,  for  example’s  sake,  to  perish  in  the 
attempt ;  and  this  moral  distinction  also  is  not  wanting 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  which  affirms,  that, 
when  it  is  the  obvious  design  of  a  government  to  reduce  a 
people  under  absolute  despotism,  u  it  is  their  right,  it  is 
their  duty,  to  throw  off  such  government,” 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION. 


8T 


I  come  back,  then,  to  the  wisdom  and  moderation  of  this 
Declaration  as  one  of  the  marvels  of  political  history,  —  that 
men  in  the  very  act  of  revolution,  while  proclaiming  their 
independence,  were  so  careful  to  measure  their  rights  and 
define  their  duties,  and  to  guard  the  future  peace  and  order 
of  society  against  the  perversion  of  the  precedent  they  were 
compelled  to  set.  They  clothed  their  Revolution  with  the 
sanctity  of  duty  by  throwing  around  it  the  three  condi¬ 
tions  required  to  vindicate  a  war  of  society  upon  govern¬ 
ment  :  (1)  The  movement  must  be  founded  in  justice, 
and  have  in  view  the  deliverance  of  society  from  evil,  and 
its  re-establishment  upon  the  sound  basis  of  the  public 
good ;  (2)  The  evils  against  which  it  protests  must  be 
grievous  and  unbearable  wrongs ;  (3)  Revolution  should 
appear  to  be  the  only,  and  at  the  same  time  a  feasible, 
mode  of  redress.  Bad  government,  at  the  worst,  may  be 
better  than  anarchy ;  and  such  are  the  horrors  of  civil 
war,  that  no  people  should  dare  attempt  a  revolution  save 
in  the  last  resort  against  desperate  wrongs,  and  with  a 
reasonable  hope  of  success  in  the  attempt  to  win  justice 
by  the  sword.  The  French  Constitution  of  June  24, 
1793,  declared  that  u  every  order  against  a  person,  in  cases 
and  forms  not  specified  by  law,  is  arbitrary  and  tyranni¬ 
cal,”  —  a  proposition  the  truth  of  which  is  now  generally 
admitted,  except  during  a  state  of  siege  ;  but  the  article 
added,  “  The  person  against  whom  such  an  order  should  be 
executed  by  force  has  the  right  to  resist  it  by  force,”  1 
—  a  declaration  that  goes  far  beyond  the  naked  right  of 
self-defence,  and  would  authorize  every  citizen,  and  much 
more  any  body  of  citizens,  when  aggrieved  by  an  unjust 
act  of  government,  to  resist  by  violence  in  the  first  in¬ 
stance,  and  hence  would  keep  alive  in  the  body  politic  a 
latent  fever  of  rebellion,  liable  to  break  out  upon  the 
slightest  provocation.  Such  a  “right  of  revolution” 
would  arm  the  citizens  en  permanence  as  a  police  against 
the  government,  and  subject  the  authority  of  the  State  to 
the  caprice  and  anarchy  of  individual  wills.  It  might 
overthrow  a  bad  government,  but  could  never  establish 
good  and  stable  society. 

Mr.  Jefferson,  during  his  residence  in  Paris,  seems  to 


i  Article  11. 


88  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


have  liacl  his  head  turned  for  a  moment  by  the  political 
philosophy  that  prepared  the  French  Revolution.  Writing 
from  Paris  in  1789,  he  said,  “  The  earth  belongs  always  to 
the  living  generation :  they  may  manage  it,  then,  and 
what  proceeds  from  it,  as  they  please,  during  their  usu¬ 
fruct.  They  are  masters,  too,  of  their  own  persons ;  and, 
consequently,  may  govern  them  as  they  please.  But  per¬ 
sons  and  property  make  the  sum  of  the  objects  of  govern¬ 
ment.  The  constitution  and  the  laws  of  their  predecessors 
are  extinguished,  then,  in  their  natural  course,  with  those 
whose  will  gave  them  being.  This  could  preserve  that 
being  till  it  ceased  to  be  itself,  and  no  longer.  Every  con¬ 
stitution,  then,  and  every  law,  naturally  expires  at  the  end 
of  thirty-four  years.  If  it  be  enforced  longer,  it  is  an  act 
of  force,  and  not  of  right.”  1  Again  he  wrote  from  Paris, 
“  The  late  rebellion  in  Massachusetts  has  given  more 
alarm  than  I  think  it  should  have  done.  Calculate  that 
one  rebellion  in  thirteen  States,  in  the  course  of  eleven 
years,  is  but  one  for  each  State  in  a  century  and  a  half. 
No  country  should  be  so  long  without  a  revolution.”  2 
This  theory  of  revolution  would  make  of  government  a 
pendulum,  but  without  even  a  fixed  centre  of  oscillation  : 
it  would  build  the  State  upon  the  slope  of  a  volcano  or 
the  bank  of  a  mountain-torrent  on  a  deliberate  calculation 
of  an  eruption  or  an  inundation  once  in  a  generation.  It 
ignores  the  fact  that  men  of  at  least  three  several  genera¬ 
tions  are  always  mingled  together,  and  profit  contempora¬ 
neously  by  each  other’s  labors ;  for,  though  vital  statistics 
have  averaged  a  generation  at  thirty-three  years*  the 
curtain  does  not  fall  upon  the  stage  of  life  three  times  in  a 
century  that  the  earth  may  be  cleared  of  one  generation, 
and  another  may  appear.  Generations  do  not  march  on 
and  off  the  stage  in  platoons.  Men  are  born  and  grow, 
and  society  and  the  state  are  things  of  growth ;  for  there 
enter  into  the  constitution  of  society  and  of  government 
certain  ethical  principles  that  have  a  permanent  life. 
When  one  generation  with  toil  and  blood  has  won  free¬ 
dom  of  thought  and  freedom  of  conscience,  and  has  caused 
these  to  be  incorporated  with  the  political  organism  of 
society,  no  after-generation  is  at  liberty  to  vacate  the 

1  Letter  to  Madison:  Works,  iii.  106.  2  Ibid.,  ii.  331. 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION. 


89 


charter  of  these  rights.  Human  society  is  organic,  and 
exists  in  continuity,  haying  certain  uniform,  transmissible, 
and  indefeasible  interests,  that  each  generation,  in  turn, 
receives  as  a  heritage  from  the  past  in  trust  for  the  fu¬ 
ture.1  The  extravagances  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  just  quoted, 
reflect  the  French  philosophy  of  the  eighteenth  century 
concerning  man,  liberty,  the  social  compact,  and  kindred 
themes  of  Diderot,  Rousseau,  Voltaire  :  they  illustrate  the 
vicious  maxim  of  Diderot,  that  “  the  first  step  towards 
philosophy  is  incredulity;  ”  and  would  make  the  first  step 
towards  society  a  mutual  distrust,  the  first  step  towards 
the  state  a  chronic  insecurity.  The  American  doctrine  of 
revolution,  on  the  contrary,  was  clearly  and  consistently 
maintained  by  John  Adams.  “  The  means  and  measures  of 
ours,”  he  wrote,  “  may  teach  mankind  that  revolutions  are 
no  trifles  ;  that  they  ought  never  to  be  undertaken  rashly ; 
nor  without  deliberate  consideration  and  sober  reflection  ; 
nor  without  a  solid,  immutable,  eternal  foundation  of 
justice  and  humanity ;  nor  without  a  people  possessed  of 
intelligence,  fortitude,  and  integrity  sufficient  to  carry 
them,  with  steadiness,  patience,  and  perseverance,  through 
all  the  vicissitudes  of  fortune,  the  fiery  trials  and  melan¬ 
choly  disasters  they  may  have  to  encounter.”  2  All  these 
conditions  were  fulfilled  in  the  men  who  led  the  American 
Revolution ;  and,  when  Adams  thus  characterized  it,  he 
had  before  him  its  results  of  more  than  forty  years.  It  is 
due  to  Jefferson  to  say  that  he  emerged  from  the  visionary 
philosophy  of  the  French  revolutionary  era,  and  returned 
to  the  sober  discrimination  that  marks  the  declaration  of 
the  American  Revolution ; 3  but  his  momentary  aberra¬ 
tion  serves  to  point  more  sharply  the  distinction  between 
the  notions  of.  man,  liberty,  society,  and  the  state,  that 
mark  the  two  greatest  events  of  the  last  century,  —  the 
American  Revolution  and  the  French.  The  American 
Revolution  based  itself  upon  a  declaration  of  the  equal 
rights  of  men,  and  issued  in  a  republic  under  a  constitu¬ 
tion  approved  by  the  people  :  the  French  Revolution  also 

1  I  have  expanded  this  argument  in  an  address  to  the  Union  League 
Club,  entitled  Revolution  against  Free  Government  not  a  Right,  but  a 
Crime. 

2  Written  in  1818:  Works,  x.  283. 

3  Letter  to  Lafayette,  Feb.  14,  1815:  Works,  vol.  vi.  421. 


90 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


put  forth  a  declaration  of  the  rights  of  man,  and  resolved 
the  nation  into  a  republic  with  a  constitution.  But  at  this 
point  the  analogy  ceases  ;  and  the  two  movements,  starting 
from  the  same  idea,  and  aiming  at  the  same  end,  diverge 
as  widely  in  their  methods  and  their  philosophy  as  in  their 
practical  results  to  the  nations  and  to  mankind.  The 
American  Colonies  revolted  against  the  usurpation  of  a 
government  that  distance  and  alienation  had  rendered 
almost  foreign,  and  threw  off  forms  that  had  dwindled  to 
shadows.  The  French  nation  revolted  not  only  against  a 
government  and  its  oppressions,  but  against  the  whole 
constitution  of  society  upon  its  own  soil :  the  monarchy, 
the  nobility,  the  clergy,  the  body  of  landholders,  the  ad¬ 
ministration  of  education,  of  justice,  of  police,  the  civil  and 
criminal  codes,  the  entire  fabric  and  material  of  what  for 
ages  had  been  the  social  structure  of  France,  were  tumbled 
into  the  abyss ;  and  from  that  chaos  of  terror  and  blood  it 
was  sought  to  create  a  new  world  of  order,  freedom,  light. 
But  the  masterful  philosophy  that  shaped  and  guided  the 
American  Revolution  was  not  there.  Mirabeau  possessed 
this  ;  but  it  perished  with  that  “head  ”  which  was  his  only 
“party.”  Lafayette  essayed  it;  but  France  had  no  Wash¬ 
ington  :  and  so  the  nation,  stripped  of  king  and  priest, 
of  state  and  church,  of  loyalty  and  reverence,  of  form  and 
precedent,  put  its  faith  in  a  philosophy  of  freedom  and  of 
man,  that  began  in  the  negation  of  that  spiritual  life  which 
alone  makes  man  worthy  of  freedom,  or  freedom  a  boon  to 
man. 

It  is  but  just  to  the  French  Revolution  to  say,  that,  if  its 
excesses  were  monstrous,  its  provocations  were  also  mon¬ 
strous.  If  it  filled  Europe  with  the  stench  of  its  abomina¬ 
tions,  this  was  because  society  was  already  rotten  to  the 
core.  One  cannot  fairly  compare  the  French  Revolution 
with  the  American  without  allowing  for  the  difference 
between  the  two  nations  in  geographical  position,  in  his¬ 
torical  and  social  antecedents,  and  also  in  race-training 
and  temperament.  France  Avas  not  left,  has  never  since 
till  now  been  left,  to  work  out  her  problems  alone.  She 
has  never  been  free  from  the  necessity  of  maintaining  a 
great  army ;  and,  with  a  nation  under  arms,  freedom  is 
always  in  duress.  But,  after  all  these  concessions,  there 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION. 


91 


remains  a  vital'  divergence  in  the  philosophy  of  the  two 
movements. 

The  French  theorists  mistook  the  source  of  power  for 
the  foundation  of  freedom.  Perceiving  that  power  in  the 
State  should  emanate  directly  or  indirectly  from  the  peo¬ 
ple,  they  fancied  that  universal  suffrage  was  the  equiva¬ 
lent  and  the  guaranty  of  personal  and  national  freedom. 
Borrowing  a  phrase  from  the  American  Declaration  of 
Independence,  they,  too,  declared  that  “  government  is 
instituted  to  insure  to  man  the  free  use  of  his  natural  and 
inalienable  rights  :  ”  but  they  defined  these  rights  as 
“  equality,  liberty,  security,  property,”  and  asserted  that 
“  every  citizen  has  the  right  of  taking  part  in  the  legis¬ 
lation  ;  ”  thus  practically  merging  all  human  rights  in  the 
right  of  suffrage,  as  they  had  merged  all  political  power 
in  the  sovereignty  of  the  people.  To  them  political  lib¬ 
erty  was  not  a  means  of  securing  men  in  their  proper  free¬ 
dom,  but  was  itself  the  end,  the  supreme  good,  of  man  and 
of  society.  “The  French  Republic,”  said  they,  “  places 
the  constitution  under  the  guaranty  of  all  virtues.”1 
Thus  they  traced  freedom  to  a  political  foundation,  and 
vested  it  in  a  political  form.  Regarding  this  as  the  ulti¬ 
mate  good,  they  declared,  “  When  government  violates 
the  rights  of  the  people,  insurrection  of  the  people,  and 
of  every  single  part  of  it,  is  the  most  sacred  of  its  rights, 
and  the  highest  of  its  duties.”  1  This  constitution  was 
ordered  to  be  engraved  on  tablets,  and  set  up  in  the  hall 
of  legislation  and  in  public  places  ;  but,  having  been 
accepted  by  the  people  in  their  primary  assemblies,  it 
came  back  to  be  strangled  in  the  convention  that  gave  it 
birth.  To-day  again  one  reads  in  Paris,  on  the  palaces, 
the  churches,  the  museums,  the  libraries,  the  parks,  the 
abattoirs,  the  very  cemeteries,  Propriety  Nationals,  Liberte, 
Egalite,  Fraternitc ,  —  to  be  wiped  out,  perhaps,  by  the  mop 
of  the  next  regime. 

The  American  Declaration  of  Independence,  on  the 
contrary,  makes  the  essence  of  freedom  not  political,  but 
ethical,  —  the  attribute  of  man  as  a  spiritual  person:  and 
the  State,  which  by  forms  of  political  liberty  is  to  guard 
this  freedom,  which  is  older  and  higher  than  itself,  derives 

1  Constitution,  Art.  123.  2  Declaration,  Art.  35. 


92  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

from  it  something  of  its  spiritual  dignity ;  so  that  the  body 
politic  is  possessed  also  of  a  moral  personality.  Hence 
the  Declaration  does  not  couch  natural  rights  in  political 
forms,  but  makes  the  whole  nature  of  man  —  physical, 
intellectual,  and  moral  —  the  basis  of  rights  for  which 
political  society  is  bound  to  care,  and  before  which  gov¬ 
ernments  must  fall  when  they  attempt  to  destroy  the 
rights,  inherent  in  personality,  with  which  man  is  endowed 
by  his  Creator.  As  a  sentient  being,  man  has  the  right  of 
life  ;  but  why  is  his  life  a  right  girt  about  with  law,  when 
he  takes  at  will  the  life  of  other  animals,  and  feeds  upon 
theirs  to  sustain  his  own  ?  As  a  creature  of  intelligence 
and  will,  man  is  capable  of  freedom,  and  has  the  right  to 
liberty  of  thought,  speech,  movement,  action.  But  why 
is  liberty  a  right  to  him,  when  at  his  pleasure  he  puts 
restraint  upon  other  animals,  and  makes  them  his  servants  ? 
As  a  being  of  a  moral  nature,  with  national  affections, 
imagination,  taste,  the  power  of  choosing  good,  capacity 
of  virtue,  man  is  capable  of  happiness ,  —  a  term  that  is 
never  degraded  to  the  animal  passions  and  pleasures,  —  a 
term  descriptive  only  of  an  intelligent,  free,  moral  person. 
The  good  of  such  a  person  is  higher  than  all  laws  of 
nature,  higher  than  all  material  things  and  all  conven¬ 
tional  forms.  The  pursuit  of  happiness  is  an  inalienable 
right,  with  which  he  is  endowed  by  his  Creator.  As  a 
social  being,  he  retains  all  these  original  qualities  and 
endowments  :  they  cannot  be  alienated  by  social  contract ; 
they  cannot  be  merged  in  political  forms.  Society  is  but 
an  instrument  for  the  more  perfect  development  of  this 
transcendent  person  in  the  best  use  and  enjoyment  of  life, 
through  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness  ;  and  society 
compounded  of  such  personalities  is  itself  a  spiritual 
organism,  with  the  right  to  freedom  and  to  the  most  con¬ 
summate  good  for  the  whole  body  and  for  all  its  parts. 
Before  this  spiritual  dignity  of  manhood,  government 
must  bow  as  to  a  nature  higher  than  its  own.  Govern¬ 
ment  cannot  use  man  as  a  mere  numerical  factor  in  the 
social  machine.  Because  of  this  original,  spiritual  dig¬ 
nity  of  his  nature,  government  must  make  his  life,  his  lib¬ 
erty,  his  happiness,  its  care,  and  see  that  these  have  their 
fullest  play.  Before  this  inherent,  inalienable  dignity, 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION. 


93 


government  must  go  down,  if  it  sliall  dare  infringe  upon 
the  natural  rights  of  man.  And  yet,  because  the  well¬ 
being  of  man  is  above  all  other  considerations,  even  that 
which  threatens  him  with  evil  should  not  be  rashly  over¬ 
thrown,  lest  the  violence  should  do  him  greater  harm. 
There  is  the  American  doctrine  of  man,  of  freedom,  of 
government,  of  revolution,  —  that  man,  who  is  first  in  order 
of  being,  should  have  a  political  and  social  state  suited  to 
his  endowments;  that  the  true  life  of  society  is  to  be 
sought,  not  by  perpetual  revolution,  but  by  progressive 
evolution  ;  not  by  overturning,  but  by  uplifting. 

The  French  philosophy  of  the  eighteenth  century  failed 
to  construct  a  free  and  stable  society,  because  it  failed  of 
that  spiritual  conception  of  society  and  man  that  under¬ 
lies  the  American  Declaration.  The  philosophy  of  Mill, 
Comte,  Buckle,  fails  for  the  same  reason.  Neither  mate¬ 
rialism  nor  positivism  can  provide  a  basis  for  freedom  in 
the  individual  or  in  the  community.  You  cannot  have 
the  play  of  u  Hamlet  ”  without  the  Prince  ot  Denmark ; 
and,  in  the  great  drama  of  freedom,  you  cannot  move  for¬ 
ward  without  that  grand  impersonation  of  freedom, 
man,  as  endowed  by  his  Creator  with  the  gift  and  capacity 
of  liberty  and  happiness.  Society  can  give  no  man  free¬ 
dom  :  all  men  are  created  equal. 

“  What  constitutes  a  State  ? 

Not  high-raised  battlements  or  labored  mound, 

Thick  wall  or  moated  gate ; 

Not  cities  proud,  with  spires  and  turrets  crowned. 

No:  men,  high-minded  men, — 

Men  who  their  duties  know, 

But  know  their  rights,  and,  knowing,  dare  maintain, — 

These  constitute  a  State.” 

Upon  the  principles  thus  laid  down,  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  proceeds  to  justify  the  rejection  of  British 
rule  by  an  enumeration  of  specific  grievances.  The  king 
is  charged  with  attempting  to  subvert  the  legislative 
power  in  the  Colonies,  by  suspending  legislatures,  bv  dis¬ 
solving  them,  by  refusing  to  sanction  their  acts ;  by  deny¬ 
ing  new  elections ;  by  forcing  upon  the  Colonies  the  cliiect 
legislation  of  the  British  Parliament,  without  permitting 
them  to  be  represented  in  the  Parliament,  or  even  to  be 


94  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


heard  there  by  petition.  The  king  is  charged  with 
attempting  to  control  or  to  corrupt  the  judiciary  by  mak¬ 
ing  the  judges  dependent  on  his  will  alone ;  by  exempting 
his  officers,  civil  and  military,  from  trial  within  the  Colo¬ 
nies  for  offences  there  committed  ;  by  abolishing  in  many 
cases  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  ;  by  arresting,  without  war¬ 
rant  of  law,  colonists  for  alleged  offences  against  the  gov¬ 
ernment,  and  transporting  them  to  England,  to  be  there 
punished  by  arbitrary  power.  The  king  is  charged  with 
setting  up  a  military  jurisdiction  over  the  Colonies,  mak¬ 
ing  the  military  independent  of  and  superior  to  the  civil 
power  by  quartering  armed  troops  upon  the  Colonies, 
sending  foreign  mercenaries  to  subdue  them,  and  by  incit¬ 
ing  negroes  and  Indians  to  insurrection.  The  king  is 
charged  with  attempting  to  destroy  the  prosperity  of  the 
Colonies  by  restricting  immigration,  refusing  grants  of 
lands,  cutting  off  trade,  and  imposing  taxes  without  con¬ 
sent.  And,  as  the  crowning  grievance,  the  king  is 
charged  with  taking  away  the  charters  of  the  Colonies, 
and  attempting  to  subvert  their  fundamental  right  of 
local  government.  For  years,  these  growing  usurpations 
had  been  opposed  by  petition  and  remonstrance,  but  in 
vain.  It  was  evident  that  the  object  of  the  king  was  the 
establishment  of  an  absolute  tyranny  over  the  Colonies. 
He  was  trying  to  subjugate  them  b}^  force,  —  ravaging 
their  coasts,  and  burning  their  towns ;  and  there  was 
nothing  left  for  them  but  to  fall  back  upon  their  inalien¬ 
able  rights,  and  make  a  stand.  The  proofs  of  these  several 
charges  they  had  already  laid  before  the  world.  History 
has  ratified  their  action ;  and  mankind  confess  their  obli¬ 
gation  to  the  framers  of  that  great  charter  of  freedom, 
which  was  the  first  to  formulate  the  functions  of  govern¬ 
ment  in  harmony  with  the  natural  rights  of  man,  and  to 
cement  government  and  people,  law  and  liberty,  power 
and  right,  in  a  way  that  should  endure  the  strain  of  war 
and  the  severer  strain  of  success. 

Two  other  grievances,  not  named  in  the  Declaration, 
had  strong  inlluence  in  provoking  the  Revolution,  —  the 
slave-trade,  which  had  been  forced  upon  the  Colonies  in 
the  interest  of  British  commerce  ;  and  the  attempt  to  force 
upon  all  the  Colonies  the  English  Church  Establishment, 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION-. 


95 


which  had  always  existed  in  some.  In  the  first  draught 
of  the  Declaration,  preserved  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  there  was 
a  protest  against  the  slave-trade,  which  in  vigor,  and  pun¬ 
gency  of  rhetoric,  surpassed  any  thing  else  in  the  docu¬ 
ment,  and  which,  from  the  pen  of  a  slaveholder,  is  a  faith¬ 
ful  testimony  to  reason  and  conscience  struggling  for  the 
right.  Let  it  speak  for  itself :  — 

“  He  has  waged  cruel  war  against  human  nature  itself,  violating 
its  most  sacred  rights  of  life  and  liberty  in  the  persons  of  a  distant 
people  who  never  offended  him,  captivating  and  carrying  them  into 
slavery  in  another  hemisphere,  or  to  incur  miserable  death  in  their 
transportation  thither.  This  piratical  warfare,  the  opprobrium  of 
infidel  powers,  is  the  warfare  of  the  Christian  king  of  Great  Britain. 
Determined  to  keep  open  a  market  where  men  should  be  bought  and 
sold,  he  has  prostituted  his  negative  for  suppressing  every  legislative 
attempt  to  prohibit  or  to  restrain  this  execrable  commerce ;  and,  that 
this  assemblage  of  horrors  might  want  no  fact  of  distinguished  die, 
he  is  now  exciting  these  very  people  to  rise  in  arms  among  us,  and  to 
purchase  that  liberty  of  which  he  has  deprived  them,  by  murdering 
the  people  on  whom  he  also  obtruded  them,  thus  paying  off  former 
crimes  committed  against  the  liberties  of  one  people  with  crimes 
which  he  urges  them  to  commit  against  the  lives  of  another.” 

The  fact  that  Jefferson  wrote  these  words  in  a  Declara¬ 
tion  that  he  expected  the  entire  Congress  would  adopt 
and  send  forth  to  the  world,  and  that  John  Adams,  Ben¬ 
jamin  Franklin,  Robert  R.  Livingston,  and  Roger  Sherman, 
his  colleagues  on  the  committee,  agreed  to  report  his 
draught  to  the  Congress  for  adoption,  shows  that  the  au¬ 
thors  of  that  paper  were  not  vaporing  about  universal  lib¬ 
erty  to  cover  their  own  struggle  for  independence,  but  were 
honestly  devoted  to  the  rights  of  man,  and  ready  to  rest 
the  argument  for  liberty  upon  manhood,  without  thought 
of  race,  color,  or  condition.  But  the  conditions  were  new 
and  strange.  They  were  attempting  a  great  revolution 
upon  most  unequal  terms:  without  unanimity,  they  must 
fail;  and,  to  secure  that  unanimity,  the  moral  and  logical 
conviction  of  the  many  yielded  to  the  supposed  interests 
and  feelings  of  the  few.  Jefferson  writes  in  his  autobiog¬ 
raphy,  “  The  clause  reprobating  the  enslaving  the  inhab¬ 
itants  of  Africa  was  struck  out  in  complaisance  to  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia,  who  had  never  attempted  to  re¬ 
strain  the  importation  of  slaves,  and  who,  on  the  contrary, 


96 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


still  wished  to  continue  it.  Our  Northern  brethren  also, 
I  believe,  felt  a  little  tender  under  these  censures;  for 
though  their  people  had  very  few  slaves  themselves,  yet 
they"  had  been  pretty  considerable  carriers  of  them  to 
others.”  1 

It  is  easy  now  to  say,  that,  in  slurring  over  the  fact  of 
slavery,  they  made  a  fearful  mistake ;  that  they  fastened 
upon  the  front  of  liberty  a  stigma  that  only  the  blood  of 
the  nation  could  wash  out.  It  is  easy  to  say,  that  with  a 
higher  faith  in  right  and  duty,  a  nobler  courage  and  sacri¬ 
fice  for  man,  a  loftier  vision  of  the  future,  they  would  have 
set  freedom  and  humanity  a  century  forward.  Can  we  be 
so  sure  of  this  ?  Let  us  not  bedaub  their  sturdy  work 
with  our  cheap  rhetoric.  They  were  honest,  and  did  what 
they  could.  Their  call  was  to  make  a  nation  ;  and,  spite 
of  all  defects,  they  did  make  a  nation,  in  whose  fibre  free¬ 
dom  and  manhood  were  so  ingrained,  that,  when  recalled 
to  the  consciousness  of  its  first  principles,  the  nation  was 
capable  of  restoring  the  rights  of  man  at  cost  of  three 
thousand  million  dollars  and  three  hundred  thousand 
lives.  “  Cursed  be  he  that  setteth  light  by  his  fathers ; 
and  let  all  the  people  say,  Amen.” 2 

That  the  rumor  of  erecting  the  Colonies  into  an  episco¬ 
pate  of  the  Established  Church  fired  the  zeal  for  revolu¬ 
tion,  we  have  the  explicit  testimony  of  John  Adams,  who 
says  that  “  this  contributed  as  much  as  any  other  cause  to 
arouse  the  attention,  not  only  of  the  inquiring  mind,  but 
of  the  common  people,  and  urge  them  to  close  thinking  on 
the  constitutional  authority  of  Parliament  over  the  Colo¬ 
nies;  ”8  and  in  1768  the  Assembly  of  the  Province  of  Mas- 

1  Works,  vol.  i.  19.  2  Deut.  xxvii.  1G. 

3  Works,  x.  185. 

“  If  Parliament  could  tax  us,  they  could  establish  the  Church  of  Eng¬ 
land,  with  all  its  creeds,  articles,  tests,  ceremonies,  and  titles,  and  prohibit 
all  other  churches  as  conventicles  and  schism-sliops”  (John  Adams: 
Works,  x.  287).  This  pretence  was,  in  fact,  set  up  by  Dr.  Sherlock, 
Bishop  of  London,  in  a  letter  to  the  king  in  council,  February,  1759: 
“The  Church  of  England  being  established  in  America,  the  Independents, 
and  other  dissenters  who  went  to  settle  in  New  England,  could  only  have 
a  toleration”  (Colonial  Documents  of  New  York,  vii.  3G0).  The  bishop 
seems  to  have  argued  in  this  wise:  The  name  “Virginia”  was  at  first 
vaguely  given  to  the  whole  coast  of  North  America  between  the  thirty- 
fourth  and  the  forty-fifth  degrees  of  north  latitude;  that  is,  from  Cape 
Fear  to  Halifax.  In  the  charter  of  the  actual  Colony  of  Virginia,  it  was 
stipulated  that  religion  should  be  established  according  to  the  doctrine  and 
rites  of  the  Church  of  England;  and  now,  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  later, 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  DECLARATION. 


97 


sacliusetts  instructed  their  agent  in  London  strenuously 
to  oppose  such  an  episcopate,  as  a  peril  to  liberty,  civil 
and  religious.1  Though  this  grievance  was  not  named  in 
the  Declaration,  the  founders  of  the  government  provided 
against  such  a  peril  by  abolishing  all  religious  tests  for 
political  office,  and  enacting  that  “  Congress  shall  make  no 
law  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion,  or  prohibiting 
the  free  exercise  thereof.” 

But  as  their  excessive  caution  in  regard  to  slavery 
entailed  upon  the  nation  the  conflict  of  a  century,  so  this 
unbounded  confidence  in  liberty  threatens  the  opening 
century  with  conflict  with  a  spiritual  despotism  that 
seeks  to  use  the  forms  of  freedom  for  controlling  the  votes, 
the  schools,  the  laws,  the  moneys,  of  the  republic,  in  the 
interest  of  a  foreign  potentate  the  most  absolute  and 
unyielding.  Yet  the  principles  of  the  Declaration  are 
equal .  to  this  emergency.  A  new  danger  will  rouse 
Americans  once  more  to  the  consciousness  of  their  history 
and  of  their  trust ;  and  the  nation  that  first  emancipated 
itself  from  political  despotism,  and  next  from  domestic 

when  the  boundaries  of  Virginia  were  definitely  fixed,  and  other  Colonies 
had  their  limits  and  their  rights  defined  by  charters,  the  bishop  put  forth 
the  preposterous  claim,  that,  by  virtue  of  the  first  charter  of  Virginia,  the 
Church  of  England  should  be  held  to  be  established  in  New  England  also. 
How  the  people  of  Boston  relished  this  doctrine  is  shown  by  a  caricature 
in  the  Political  Register  of  1769,  entitled  An  Attempt  to  land  a  Bishop 
in  America.  A  ship  is  at  the  wharf:  the  lord-bishop  is  in  full  canonicals, 
his  carriage,  crosier,  and  mitre  on  deck.  The  people  appear  with  a  banner 
inscribed  with  “Liberty  and  Freedom  of  Conscience,”  and  are  shouting, 
“No  lords,  spiritual  or  temporal,  in  New  England !  ”  “  Shall  they  be  obliged 
to  maintain  bishops  that  cannot  maintain  themselves?”  They  pelt  the 
bishop  with  Locke,  Sidney  on  Government,  Barclay’s  Apology,  Calvin’s 
Works;  and  the  unhappy  prelate  is  glad  to  take  refuge  in  the  shrouds, 
crying,  “  Lord,  now  lettest  thou  thy  servant  depart  in  peace.”  This  protest 
was  not  against  a  church,  but  against  an  enforced  Establishment;  and  the 
books  show  in  what  strong  reading  the  colonists  were  nourished.  (See  the 
picture  in  Thornton’s  Pulpit  of  the  American  Revolution.) 

The  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts  was 
active  in  this  scheme  for  establishing  the  Church  through  an  American 
episcopate,  to  be  supported,  of  course,  by  tithes.  In  October,  1776,  Dr. 
Charles  Inglis,  Rector  of  Trinity  Church,  New  York,  wrote  to  the  society, 
“The  present  rebellion  is  certainly  one  of  the  most  causeless,  unprovoked, 
and  unnatural  that  ever  disgraced  any  country.  .  .  .  Although  civil 
liberty  was  the  ostensible  object,  yet  it  As  now  past  all  doubt  that  an 
abolition  of  the  Church  of  England  was  one  of  the  principal  springs  of  the 
dissenting  leaders’  conduct.”  He  testifies  that  “all  the  society’s  mission¬ 
aries  in  New  Jersey,  New  York,  Connecticut,  have  proved  themselves 
faithful,  loyal  subjects,”  shutting  up  their  churches  rather  than  cease 
praying  for  the  king;  and  he  urges  the  episcopate  as  an  encouragement 
to  such  fidelity  (Doc.  Hist,  of  New  York,  iii.  637  seq.). 

1  Life  of  Sam.  Adams,  i.  157. 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


slavery,  will  vindicate  the  independence  of  society  and  the 
state  against  the  worse  tyranny  of  ecclesiastical  interfer¬ 
ence  and  control.  Just  because,  in  the  immortal  concept 
of  the  Declaration,  man  is  a  spiritual  creation,  endowed 
with  the  right  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  good,  so 
much  the  more  must  society  keep  intact  its  spiritual 
organism,  its  moral  personality,  the  independence  of  which 
is  life,  liberty,  happiness. 


NOTE. 

Since  the  foregoing  Lecture  was  prepared  for  the  press,  I  have  had 
the  pleasure  of  reading  the  more  prominent  orations  which  the  cele¬ 
bration  of  the  Centenary  of  Independence  called  forth  in  the  United 
States,  —  that  of  the  Hon.  William  M.  Evarts  at  Philadelphia,  that 
of  the  Rev.  R.  S.  Storrs,  D.D.,  at  New  York,  that  of  the  Hon.  Charles 
Francis  Adams  at  Taunton,  and  that  of  the  Hon.  Robert  C.  Winthrop 
at  Boston.  It  is  a  fine  testimony  to  the  Declaration  as  a  document  of 
political  ethics,  that  it  could  furnish  to  minds  of  such  high  and  varied 
powers  the  theme  of  thoughtful  and  admiring  discourse  from  so  many 
different  points  of  view.  Neither  orator  crossed  the  track  of  the 
others,  nor  did  the  orations  run  in  parallel  lines  of  thought ;  yet  each 
found  in  the  Declaration  —  its  antecedents,  its  incidents,  its  principles, 
its  results  —  matter  for  a  discourse  of  more  than  ordinary  fulness 
and  power ;  and  it  is  only  when  one  has  read  the  whole  four  of  these 
masterful  productions,  and  gathered  into  one  their  total  impressions, 
that  he  begins  to  realize  how  great  an  event,  in  history,  in  philosophy, 
and  in  the  political  and  social  ordering  of  the  world,  was  the  utter¬ 
ance  that  went  forth  from  Independence  Hall  in  Philadelphia  on 
the  Fourth  of  July,  1776.  All  these  orators  have  passed  the  period 
of  youthful  enthusiasm,  and  neither  of  them  was  ever  addicted  to 
extravagance  of  speech.  They  have  had  large  training  and  expe¬ 
rience  in  law,  divinity,  statesmanship,  letters,  history;  yet  wTith  every 
one  of  them  the  theme  tasked  the  powers  of  the  orator,  as  it  before 
had  tasked  Choate,  Everett,  Webster.  Nothing  that  was  said  about 
the  Declaration  could  approach  the  silent  eloquence  of  the  instrument 
itself,  as  the  original  parchment,  with  the  autographs  of  John  Han¬ 
cock,  Samuel  Adams,  John  Adams,  Roger  Sherman,  Oliver  Wolcott, 
Benjamin  Franklin,  Charles  Carroll  of  Carrollton ,  Thomas  Jefferson, 
and  the  sixfold  row  of  worthies,  was  held  up  to  the  gaze  of  thousands 
on  the  spot  where  it  was  first  read  to  the  people.  It  could  have  been 
said  of  this  parchment,  as  Webster  said  of  the  Bunker-hill  Monument, 
“  It  is  itself  the  orator  of  this  occasion.  ...  It  looks,  it  speaks,  it  acts, 
to  the  full  comprehension  of  every  American  mind,  and  the  awakening 


NOTE. 


99 


of  glowing  enthusiasm  in  every  American  heart,  surpassing  all  that 
the  study  of  the  closet,  or  even  the  inspiration  of  genius,  can  produce. 
•  •  •  Its  speech  is  of  patriotism  and  courage,  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty,  of  free  government,  of  the  moral  improvement  and  elevation 
of  mankind,  and  of  the  immortal  memory  of  those  who,  with  heroic 
devotion,  have  sacrificed  their  lives  for  their  country.”  1  The  Decla¬ 
ration  was  one  of  those  epoch-making  events  whose  influence  can  be 
measured  only  with 

“  The  golden  compasses,  prepared 

In  God’s  eternal  store  to  circumscribe 

This  universe  and  all  created  things.” 

Having  finished  the  preceding  analysis  of  the  Declaration  before 
1  was  favored  with  the  light  which  these  several  orators  ha^e  thrown 
upon  it,  I  prefer  to  let  that  stand  as  it  was,  and  to  put  into  the  form 
of  a  supplementary  note  such  further  reflections  as  the  orations  have 
awakened.  It  is  with  diffidence  that  I  set  forth,  or  rather  emphasize, 
another  interpretation  of  the  instrument  than  any  made  prominent 
by  my  scholarly  colleagues;  and  it  is  with  deference  that  I  diverge  at 
any  point  from  their  historical  perspective  of  the  event  and  its  results. 
These  orators  agree  in  separating  the  philosophical  substance  of  the 
Declaration  from  the  political  reasons  given  for  declaring  the  Colonies 
‘‘free  and  independent  States.”  The  whole  virtue  of  the  instrument 
lies  in  the  first  sentence  of  the  second  paragraph,  beginning,  “We 
hold  these,  truths  to  be  self-evident.”  Of  this  Mr.  Adams  says,  “  I 
have  considered  these  significant  words  as  vested  with  a  virtue  so 
subtle  as  certain  ultimately  to  penetrate  the  abodes  of  mankind  all 
over  the  world ;  but  I  separate  them  altogether  from  the  solemn  array 
of  charges  against  King  George  which  immediately  follow  in  the 
Declaration.”  Now,  to  maintain  for  the  Declaration  its  just  place  in 
political  philosophy  and  among  the  few  great  historic  charters  of 
human  freedom,  we  must  be  careful,  on  the  one  hand,  not  to  claim  for 
it  too  much,  whether  in  intent  or  in  result,  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
not  to  obscure  the.essential  truths  of  the  instrument  by  forms  or  acts 
that  were  but  incidental  or  consequential.  In  particular,  we  should 
not  look  to  the  Declaration  for  too  much  of  novelty  in  political  theory, 
nor  too  absolute  a  transformation  in  political  forms.  Mr.  Evarts,  for 
instance,  quotes  with  approval  the  saying  of  Burke,  “  A  great  revo¬ 
lution  has  happened,  —  a  revolution  made,  not  by  chopping  and  chan¬ 
ging  of  power  in  any  of  the  existing  States,  but  by  the  appearance  of  a 
new  State,  of  a  new  species,  in  a  new  part  of  the  globe.  It  has  made 
as  great  a  change  in  all  the  relations  and  balances  and  gravitations  of 
power  as  the  appearance  of  a  new  planet  would  in  the  system  of  the 
solar  world.”  Applie'd  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  which 
went  into  effect  in  1789,  this  simile  would  be  as  accurate  as  it  is 
beautiful :  that  did  indeed  mark  “  a  new  species  ”  of  political  organi¬ 
zation.  But  democracy  was  not  new,  a  republic  was  not  new,  at 
the  time  of  the  Revolution.  Burke  was  not  ignorant  of  the  prece¬ 
dents  in  Greek  and  Roman  history,  in  the  Italian  republics,  in  the 
Federation  of  the  Swiss,  in  the  Dutch  Republic;  all  which  exempli- 

1  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  i.  80. 


100  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

fied  more  or  less  the  doctrine  of  popular  government.  The  American 
Revolution  did  not.  like  its  successor  in  France,  begin  with  a  procla¬ 
mation  of  the  republic  as  thenceforth  to  mark  a  new  era  in  the  calen¬ 
dar,  and  give  date  to  all  decrees.  Concerning  forms  of  government, 
the  Declaration  is  absolutely  silent.  It  utters  the  voice  of  “a  free 
people ”  resolved  to  disown  a  “  tyrant”  who  is  “unfit  to  be  their 
ruler;”  but  it  does  not  propose  any  change  of  government  more 
specific  than  the  quiet  and  orderly  transformation  of  the  “  United 
Colonies  ”  into  “free  and  independent  States.”  The  act  dissolving 
“  all  political  connection  between  them  and  the  State  of  Great  Britain,” 
though  it  constituted  “a  new  State,”  did  not  create  “  a  new  species  ” 
of  State. 

Neither  is  it  quite  correct  to  speak  of  the  Declaration  as  having  abol¬ 
ished  from  American  society  all  castes,  ranks,  orders,  and  all  heredi¬ 
tary  titles,  privileges,  and  distinctions,  whether  of  State  or  Church. 
In  truth,  excepting  the  occasional  attempt  of  some  royal  governor  or 
council  to  ape  an  aristocracy,  none  of  these  things  existed  in  the 
Colonies,  nor  had  been  there  from  their  first  foundation.  “  The  arts, 
sciences,  and  literature  of  England,  came  over  with  the  settlers.  That 
great  portion  of  the  common  law  which  regulates  the  social  and  per¬ 
sonal  relations  and  conduct  of  men  came  also.  The  jury  came;  the 
habeas  corpus  came ;  the  testamentary  power  came ;  and  the  law  of 
inheritance  and  descent  came  also,  except  that  part  of  it  which  recog¬ 
nizes  the  rights  of  primogeniture,  which  either  did  not  come  at  all, 
or  soon  ‘gave  way  to  the  rule  of  equal  partition  of  estates  among  chil¬ 
dren.  But  the  monarchy  did  not  come,  nor  the  aristocracy,  nor  the 
church,  as  an  estate  of  the  realm.  Political  institutions  were  to 
be  framed  anew,  such  as  should  be  adapted  to  the  state  of  things. 
But  it  could  not  be  doubtful  what  should  be  the  nature  and  character 
of  these  institutions.  A  general  social  equality  prevailed  among  the 
settlers;  and  an  equality  of  political  rights  seemed  the  natural,  if  not 
the  necessary,  consequence.”  1  Thus  the  whole  history  and  training 
of  the  colonists  had  established  the  fact  that  Burke  read  with  such 
philosophic  clearness,  —  “that  the  disposition  of  the  people  of  America 
is  wholly  averse  to  any  other  than  a  free  government.”  2  Hence  it 
was  no  novelty  to  them,  no  creation  of  “  a  new  species  ”  of  State  in 
severing  the  one  tie  that  held  them  in  nominal  allegiance  to  the 
throne,  to  cut  loose  from  an  established  church,  an  hereditary  peerage, 
and  every  artificial  caste  and  privileged  order  in  the  State.  Living 
-without  these,  they  had  naturally  developed  and  strengthened  that 
liberty,  which,  as  Englishmen,  they  had  inherited  and  enjoyed,  without, 
perhaps,  looking  farther  back  than  to  Magna  Ckarta  for  its  origin  and 
justification.  Indeed,  at  the  outset,  what  Mr.  Burke  said  of  the 
English  Revolution  was  quite  as  true  of  the  American,  —  “  The  Revo¬ 
lution  was  made  to  preserve  our  ancient  indisputable  laws  and  liber¬ 
ties,  and  that  ancient  constitution  of  government  which  is  our.  only 
security  for  law  and  liberty.”  3  Indeed,  Mr.  Burke  himself  said  he 

1  Daniel  Webster,  Oration  on  the  Completion  of  the  Banker-hill  Monu¬ 
ment. :  Works,  i.  101. 

'2  Letter  to  the  Sheriffs  of  Bristol,  1777. 

3  Reflections  on  the  Revolution  in  France. 


NOTE. 


101 


considered  “  the  Americans  as  standing  at  that  time,  and  in  that 
controversy,  in  the  same  relation  to  England  as  England  did  to 
King  James  II.  in  1688.”  1  In  their  earlier  struggles  with  king 
and  parliament,  the  colonists  contended  for  their  “  rights  as  English¬ 
men  ”  against  the  encroachments  of  arbitrary  power.  In  his  exami¬ 
nation  by  the  House  of  Commons,  Franklin  testified  that  they  resisted 
the  Stamp  Act  by  virtue  of  “the  common  rights  of  Englishmen;” 
and  the  “  Declaration  of  Rights  ”  made  by  the  first  Continental  Con¬ 
gress  in  1774  was  based  mainly  upon  the  English  Constitution,  and 
asserted,  that,  by  derivation  from  their  ancestors,  the  colonists  were 
“  entitled  to  all  the  rights,  liberties,  and  immunities  of  free  and 
natural-born  subjects  within  the  realm  of  England.” 

But  the  Declaration  of  Independence  advanced  beyond  all  charters, 
customs,  grants,  laws,  heritages,  to  the  natural  and  inalienable  rights 
of  man  as  the  foundation  of  liberty  and  the  sacred  trust  of  govern¬ 
ment.  As  a  purely  philosophical  conception,  this  was  not  original 
with  Jefferson.  In  1764  James  Otis  had  said,  “  The  first  principle 
and  great  end  of  government  is  to  provide  for  the  best  good  of  all 
the  people.”  “Nothing  but  life  and  liberty  are  actually  heritable.” 
“  The  colonists  are  men :  the  colonists  are  therefore  free-born ;  for,  by 
the  law  of  nature,  all  men  are  free-born,  white  or  black.”  “  A  time 
may  come  when  Parliament  shall  declare  every  American  charter 
void ;  but  the  natural,  inherent,  and  inseparable  rights  of  the  colo¬ 
nists  as  men  and  as  citizens  would  remain,  and,  whatever  became  of 
charters,  can  never  be  abolished  till  the  general  conflagration.”  2  It  is 
highly  probable  that  Jefferson  had  read  the  tract  of  Otis  that  made 
so  great  a  stir  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic.  But  these  sentiments 
were  not  new  with  Otis:  a  century  before,  Algernon  Sidney  had  gone 
to  the  scaffold  for  the  right  of  the  people  to  govern  themselves ;  and 
Jefferson  owns  to  having  read  Sidney  on  Government.  In  the  letter 
that  Sidney  prepared  as  his  dying  testament,  he  re-affirmed  the  prin¬ 
ciples  of  his  “Discourses  of  Government,”  —  “that  God  hath  left 
nations  to  the  liberty  of  setting  up  such  governments  as  best  please 
themselves ;  ”  and  “  that  magistrates  are  set  up  for  the  good  of 
nations,  not  nations  for  the  honor  or  glory  of  magistrates.” 

The  same  doctrine  was  taught  from  the  Scriptures  by  the  early 
divines  of  New  England.  These  devout  students  of  the  Bible  learned 
from  that  book,  more  than  any  other,  the  first  principles  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty.  In  May,  1637,  Thomas  Hooker,  first  pastor  of  Hart¬ 
ford,  preached  a  sermon  on  the  foundations  of  civil  government,  in 
which  he  laid  down  these  positions  :  — 

“  I.  That  the  choice  of  public  magistrates  belongs  unto  the  people 
by  God’s  own  allowance. 

“IT  The  privilege  of  election,  which  belongs  to  the  people,  there¬ 
fore,  must  not  be  exercised  according  to  their  humors,  but  according 
to  the  blessed  will  and  law  of  God. 

“  HI.  They  who  have  power  to  appoint  officers  and  magistrates,  it 
is  in  their  power  also  to  set  the  bounds  and  limitations  of  the  power 
and  place  unto  which  they  call  them.” 

1  Appeal  from  the  New  to  the  Old  Whigs. 

2  See  in  Bancroft,  v.  203,  204. 


^Q2  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

But  these  had  been  the  scattered  utterances  of  individuals, —  food 
for  reflection  in  the  closet,  but  not  yet  the  basis  of  action  in  affairs. 
Now,  that  which  the  Declaration  did  was  to  put  the  doctrine  of  the 
natural  equality  of  men  in  their  essential  rights,  and  the  duty  of  gov¬ 
ernment  to  secure  these  rights,  into  the  form  of  axioms  as  the  basis  oi 
political  society,  and  to  enforce  these  self-evident  truths  by  the  will 
of  a  whole  people.  The  people  came  to  the  consciousness  ot  holding 
their  rights,  not  as  Englishmen,  but  as  men. .  In  defence  of  liberties 
which  the  crown  and  parliament  were  seeking  to  revoke  or  suppress 
as  mere  chartered  privileges  of  British  subjects,  they  had  been  driven 
back  upon  those  natural  and  inalienable  rights  which  were  antece¬ 
dent  to  all  charters,  and  which  made  them  as  men  superior  to  gov¬ 
ernments,  which  could  have  lawful  existence  only  as  the  servants  and 
guardians  of  these  personal  rights  in  the  collective  interest  of  society; 
and  the  consciousness  of  these  rights  they  declared  not  as  a  thesis  in 
political  philosophy,  nor  a  theory  of  government,  but  by  embodying 
the  personality  of  the  nation  in  these  self-evident  truths.  This,  too, 
in  words  so  few,  so  clear,  so  exact,  so  just,  so  strong,  so  glowing,  that 
nothing  can  be  added  to  or  taken  from  their  original  statement . 
“We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident,  that  all  men  .are.  created 
equal ;  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain,  inaliena¬ 
ble  rights;  that  among  these  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  hap¬ 
piness  ;  that,  to  secure  these  rights,  governments  are  instituted  among 
men,  deriving  their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed; 
that,  whenever  any  form  of  government  becomes  destructive  of  these 
ends,  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  alter  or  to  abolish  it, .  and  to 
institute  a  new  government,  laying  its  foundation  on  such  principles, 
and  organizing  its  powers  in  such  form,  as  to  them  shall  seem  most 
likely  to  effect  their  safety  and  happiness.”  Here  stands  forth  a 
people  clothed  with  rights  in  its  proper  personality,  and  therefore 
entitled  to  clothe  itself  with  a  form  of  government,  according  to  its 
own  nature  and  will.  There  is  no  going  behind  this  statement,  and 
there  is  no  going  beyond  it.  I  must  repeat  with  emphasis,  that  the 
equality  and  rights  asserted  in  the  Declaration  are  personal  and  natu¬ 
ral  endowments,  and  not  political  claims  nor  concessions.  All  men, 
as  individuals,  are  equal  in  the  right  to  life,  to  liberty  of  personal 
action,  and  to  the  pursuit  of  good.  The  function  of  the  State  is 
defined  by  this  normal  equality  of  rights  ;  but  these  rights  are  not  in 
their  origin  or  nature  political.  Bluntschli 1  has  shown,  that,  strictly 
speaking,  political  equality  can  come  into  existence  only  within  the 
organized  community  of  the  State  ;  and  also,  that  if,  in  the  strict 
meaning  of  political  equality,  all  individuals  were  simply. and  exactly 
equal,  the  State  could  not  possibly  exist,  since  the  conception  of  politi¬ 
cal  inequality  is  necessarily  involved  in  the  fundamental  distinction 
of  the  governing  and  the  governed.  Equality  by  nature,  equality  be¬ 
fore  the  law,  and  equality  of  treatment  by  government,  are  not  politi¬ 
cal  equality  ;  and  political  equality  is  not  affirmed  by  the  Declaration. 
The  most  ignorant  and  imbruted  man  in  the  United  States  has  the 
same  right  that  I  have  to  live,  to  choose  his  place  and  mode  of  living, 

1  Allgemeinen  Statsrechts,  b.  i.,  c.  9,  §  iv. 


NOTE. 


103 


to  make  his  way  in  the  world,  and  to  share  the  good  things  of  life  to 
the  fullest  measure  that  he  can  attain  by  the  free  use  of  his  powers. 
The  government  is  bound  to  see  that  he  has  these  rights  to  the  largest 
degree  compatible  with  the  same  rights  in  others.  If  the  government 
tramples  upon  his  rights,  it  tramples  also  upon  mine ;  and  I  am  bound 
to  make  common  cause  with  him  against  any  encroachment  upon 
rights  that  by  nature  are  “  equal  ”  to  us  both.  But  whether  these 
rights  can  be  best  secured  to  the  community  and  to  himself  by  mak¬ 
ing  this' ignorant,  imbruted  creature  the  government ,  or  a  partaker  in 
the  government,  is  a  question  that  the  Declaration  leaves  to  political 
philosophy  and  the  experience  of  society. 

No  doubt,  as  Mr.  Evarts  has  clearly  shown,  “  as  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  new  State,  its  species  is  disclosed  by  its  existence.  The  con¬ 
dition  of  the  people  is  equal  :  they  have  the  habits  of  freemen,  and 
possess  the  institutions  of  liberty.  When  the  political  connection 
with  the  parent  State  is  dissolved,  they  will  be  self-governing  and 
self-governed  of  necessity/’  But,  at  the  same  time,  we  must  be  careful 
not  to  confound  the  declarative  act  of  177G  with  the  creative  and  form¬ 
ative  act  of  1789.  The  Constitution  was  the  product  of  consummate 
wisdom  as  to  the  form  of  a  free  government,  —  “a  new  State  of  a  new 
species;”  but  the  Declaration  stands  supreme  as  a  declaration  of 
political  ethics.  The  Constitution  has  been,  and  may  yet  be, 
amended ;  the  Declaration  never.  The  Constitution,  and  the  govern¬ 
ment  established  under  it,  may  even  be  subverted,  and  pass  away;  but 
the  truths  of  the  Declaration  must  remain  “  self-evident  ”  so  long  as 
civil  society  shall  exist  on  the  earth.  The  forms  in  which  truth  is 
embodied  may  change  or  perish ;  but  truth  as  thought  is  immortal. 
The  Constitution  is  a  form :  the  Declaration  is  a  thought.  It  is  the 
felicity  of  American  liberty  that  it  combines  the  highest  philosophi¬ 
cal  thought  of  liberty  with  the  best  structural  forms  of  liberty  as  yet 
devised.  The  strength  of  English  liberty  is,  that  it  is  a  thing  of 
growth,  and  possesses  at  once  the  vitality  drawn  from  the  soil,  and  the 
veneration  inspired  by  transmission  from  ancestors.  It  lives  on  from 
generation  to  generation  through  inherited  institutions,  without  the 
guaranties  of  a  written  constitution.  French  liberty,  on  the  other 
hand,  began  with  the  revolutionary  proclamation  of  natural  rights, 
and  has  always  attached  a  special  virtue  to  the  formula  of  a  constitu¬ 
tion.  Now,  American  liberty  combines  the  advantages  of  both,  and 
thus  counterbalances  the  defects  of  either.  All  that  was  valid  and 
vital  in  English  liberty  was  carried  by  the  earlier  emigrants  across 
the  sea.  The  common  heritage  was  theirs ;  and  they  took  with  them 
the  institutions  of -law  and  custom  by  which  this  was  guarded  and 
transmitted.  They  built  society  upon  that  foundation.  When,  at 
length,  this  hereditary  freedom  was  assailed,  they  at  first  shored  it  up 
with  charters  and  precedents,  then  laid  underneath  it  the  broader, 
surer  foundation  of  the  rights  that  God  had  given  to  all  men  alike, 
and  afterward  built  about  the  whole  structure  of  liberty,  natural 
and  institutional,  the  strong  buttresses  of  the  Constitution.  No 
principle  of  liberty  has  yet  been  thought  out  that  is  not  already  in 
the  Declaration ;  no  ordinance  of  freedom  has  yet  been  devised  that  is 
not  already  in  the  common  law  and  the  Constitution. 


104  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


I  trust  that  this  analysis  has  redeemed  for  the  Declaration  its  true 
glory,  showing  how,  as  a  philosophic  thought,  it  stands  above  the  Con¬ 
stitution,  which  is  a  political  form.  The  Constitution  did  indeed 
create  “  a  new  State  of  a  new  species  :  ”  the  Declaration  proclaims 
how  every  State,  of  whatever  species,  must  be  ordered,  if  it  would 
justify  its  claim  to  be.  It  formulated  human  personality ,  as  by  the  wrill 
of  God,  the  chief  factor  and  concern  of  civil  government.1  But, 
while  we  assert  for  the  Declaration  the  foremost  place  in  the  political 
thought  of  mankind,  we  should  be  careful  not  to  claim  too  much  for 
it  in  the  line  of  direct,  visible  results.  Mr.  Adams  thus  sums  up 
“  the  results  arrived  at  by  the  enunciation  of  the  great  law  of  liberty 
in  1776  :  — 

“  1.  It  opened  the  way  to  the  j>resent  condition  of  France. 

“  2.  It  brought  about  perfect  security  for  liberty  on  the  high  and 
narrow  seas. 

“  3.  It  led  the  way  in  abolishing  the  slave-trade,  which,  in  its  turn, 
prompted  the  abolition  of  slavery  itself  by  Great  Britain,  France, 
Russia,  and,  last  of  all,  by  our  own  country  too.”  2 

This  statement  is  marked  by  the  judicial  clearness  and  fairness  so 
characteristic  of  Mr.  Adams  ;  and  it  is,  in  the  main,  borne  out  by  the 
history  of  the  century.  Yet,  in  tracing  a  connection  between  the  move¬ 
ments  of  freedom  in  the  first  century  of  our  national  life  and  the 
Declaration  with  which  that  century  opened,  we  should  be  upon  our 
guard  against  the  logical  fallacy,  post  hoc  propter  hoc.  In  the  closer 
contact  of  nations  induced  by  modern  civilization,  influences  are  so 
ramified,  and  there  is  so  much  simultaneousness  as  well  as  consenta¬ 
neousness  of  movement,  that  it  is  not  easy  to  trace  single  events  to  a 
specific  antecedent.  At  the  first,  the  successful  achievement  of  inde¬ 
pendence  by  the  United  States,  and  the  inauguration  of  a  republican 
government,  stimulated  in  other  lands  the  fever  of  popular  govern¬ 
ment.  For  a  time,  a  declaration  of  rights  and  a  constitution  were 
regarded  as  the  panacea  for  the  woes  of  political  society.  By  and  by 
experience  showed  there  were  cases  in  which  the  remedy  might  be 
worse  than  the  disease :  still,  for  long,  the  example  of  a  thriving, 
peaceful  nation  without  royalty,  aristocracy,  establishment,  or  army, 
and  almost  without  taxes,  was  the  envy  of  foreign  peoples,  and  the 
standing  argument  for  government  by  the  people.  Then,  by  degrees, 
the  blot  of  slavery  grew  so  large  and  dense,  that  it  overshadowed  the 
lustre  of  free  institutions.  Next  came  internal  commotions  and  a 
civil  war,  that  at  first  revealed  weakness,  and  the  possibility  of  dis¬ 
ruption.  The  old  charm  of  peace  and  union  was  gone.  The  mag¬ 
nificent  uprising  of  the  nation,  the  development  of  military  resources 
and  capacity,  and  the  final  success  of  the  war  for  the  Union,  together 
with  the  overthrow  of  slavery,  not  only  revived  confidence  in  the 
republic,  but  lifted  it  into  admiration.  Then  followed  the  era  of 
taxes,  extravagance,  paper-money,  official  corruption,  and  of  universal 
depression  in  finance  and  trade,  which  has  suddenly  turned  popular 
government  into  a  political  scandal.  Through  all  these  phases  of 

1  See  Speech  at  the  Centennial  Dinner  in  London. 

2  Speech  at  Taunton. 


NOTE. 


105 


American  influence  upon  foreign  affairs,  it  is  difficult  to  trace  with 
calmness  and  certainty  the  results  for  good  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  upon  the  destiny  of  mankind.  Still  those  results  are 
even  now  greater  than  we  can  measure.  On  the  one  hand,  we  must 
free  the  Declaration  from  all  failures  and  delinquencies  of  the  Amer¬ 
ican  people  under  it  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  we  should  remember 
that  it  is  too  soon  to  look  for  its  results  in  corporate  forms  in  human 
society.  It  required  seventeen  centuries  for  Christ’s  doctrine  of  the 
divine  birthright  and  brotherhood  of  man  to  work  itself  up  to  the 
point  of  public  proclamation  as  the  foundation  of  the  State.  Other 
toiling,  groaning  ages  may  yet  attend  the  realization  of  that  Declara¬ 
tion  in  emancipated,  self-governing  peoples.  But  the  day  of  redemp¬ 
tion  is  sure.  Science  has  taught  us  the  conservation  of  energy 
through  the  transformation  of  work  into  heat,  and  of  heat  into  work. 
The  blows  the  men  of  ’76  struck  upon  the  anvil  of  liberty  did  not 
cease  wflth  the  sparks  that  then  set  the  Colonies  aflame  :  they  gener¬ 
ated  a  heat  that  has  passed  into  the  atmosphere  of  the  globe,  that 
has  kindled  in  millions  the  hope  of  liberty,  and  that,  taking  on  the 
form  of  work,  has  given  energy  and  potency  to  movements  of  popular 
reform,  and  shall  yet  start  the  mighty  enginery  that  shall  regulate 
all  social  and  political  institutions  in  harmony  with  the  good  of  the 
people. 

It  has  been  proposed  that  Americans  shall  henceforth  discontinue 
the  reading  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  on  the  Fourth  of 
July.  So  far  as  the  indictment  of  George  III.  is  concerned,  the  sug¬ 
gestion  has  some  practical  value ;  since  it  is  hardly  worth  while  to 
keep  in  remembrance  the  petty  tyrannies  of  a  very  petty  sort  of 
tyrant,  whose  chief  title,  indeed,  to  a  place  in  history,  is,  that  his 
will  was  stubborn  enough  to  cost  him  an  empire.  But  the  Declara¬ 
tion  stands  high  above  the  grounds  of  separation ;  and,  while  other 
nations  are  proclaiming  by  monuments  and  festivals  the  triumphs  of 
military  force,  it  were  an  injustice  to  posterity,  and  a  shame  to  his¬ 
tory,  if  that  nation  should  be  silent  that  first  proclaimed  the  dignity 
and  worth  of  man.  Never,  never  let  the  American  people  cease  to 
magnify  the  day  which  declared  that  “  all  men  are  created  equal ; 
that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalienable 
rights ;  and  that,  to  secure  these  rights,  governments  are  instituted 
among  men,  deriving  their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  gov¬ 
erned.” 


LECTURE  III. 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 

THE  constitution  of  a  nation  may  be  quite  another 
thing  from  a  national  constitution.  The  latter  may 
be  written  on  parchment,  and  attested  by  seals,  signatures, 
and  oaths,  and  yet  have  within  it  no  particle  of  the  life  of 
the  nation,  nor  give  to  this  a  durable  form.  The  former, 
as  in  England,  may  "be  unwritten  and  conventional,  the 
growth  of  ages ;  the  life  of  the  nation  shaping  to  itself 
form  and  features  appropriate  to  its  condition.  An  able 
expounder  of  the  English  Constitution  says, 44  The  received 
doctrine  as  to  the  relations  of  the  two  houses  of  parlia¬ 
ment  to  one  another,  the  whole  theory  of  the  position  of 
the  body  known  as  the  cabinet,  and  of  its  chief,  the  prime- 
minister,  every  detail,  in  short,  of  the  practical  working  of 
government  among  us,  is  a  matter  belonging  wholly  to  the 
unwritten  constitution,  and  not  at  all  to  the  written  law. 
...  We  now  have  a  whole  system  of  political  morality,  a 
whole  code  of  precepts  for  the  guidance  of  public  men, 
which  will  not  be  found  in  any  page  of  either  the  statute 
or  the  common  law,  but  which  are  in  practice  held  hardly 
less  sacred  than  any  principle  embodied  in  the  Great 
Charter  or  in  the  Petition  of  Right.” 1  It  is  greatly  to  the 
honor  of  the  English  people  that  they  are  able  to  govern 
themselves  with  so  much  evenness  and  stability,  while 
dispensing  with  a  formal  constitution. 

And,  on  the  other  hand v  one  of  the  foremost  patriots 
and  publicists  of  France,  Edouard  Laboulaye,  just  after 

1  Growth  of  the  English  Constitution,  by  E.  A.  Freeman,  M.A.,  pp.  109, 
113. 

10G 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


107 


the  revolution  of  1848,  said,1  “  In  the  last  sixty  years  we 
have  changed  eight  or  ten  times  our  government  and  our 
constitution;  have  passed  from  anarchy  to  despotism; 
tried  two  or  three  forms  of  the  republic  and  of  monarchy ; 
exhausted  proscription,  the  scaffold,  civil  and  foreign  war ; 
and  after  so  many  attempts,  and  attempts  paid  with  the 
fortune  and  the  blood  of  France,  we  are  hardly  more 
advanced  than  at  the  outset.  The  constitution  of  1848 
took  for  its  model  the  constitution  of  1791,  which  had  no 
life ;  and  to-day  we  are  agitating  the  same  questions  that 
in  1789  we  flattered  ourselves  we  had  resolved.  How  is  it 
that  the  Americans  have  organized  liberty  upon  a  durable 
basis,  while  we,  who  surely  are  not  inferior  to  them  in 
civilization,  —  we  who  have  their  example  before  our  eyes, 
—  have  always  miscarried?” 

The  answer  to  this  question  I  have  anticipated,  in  part, 
in  the  last  Lecture,  by  a  comparison  of  the  two  peoples  in 
their  antecedents,  their  institutions,  their  surroundings, 
and,  above  all,  in  their  ethical  beliefs  and  motives.  But, 
in  this  point  of  constitution-making,  it  will  also  be  seen 
that  the  Americans,  with  a  rare  felicity,  succeeded  in  in¬ 
corporating  the  constitution  of  the  nation,  which  is  its 
life-principle,  with  the  national  constitution,  which  gives 
to  the  national  life  its  definitive  form  and  expression. 
They  not  only  achieved  independence,  but,  in  the  happy 
phrase  of  the  French  critic,  they  “ organized  liberty.” 
This  success  was  due  to  training,  to  methods,  and  to  men, 
or  rather  to  that  mysterious  conjunction  of  men  and  events 
that  makes  the  genius  of  an  epoch  akin  to  inspiration. 

None  has  divined  this  more  clearly  than  Laboulaye,  nor 
pictured  it  with  more  strength  and  grace  of  outline,  or 
beauty  of  coloring.  u  It  was  amid  obstacles  without 
number  that  the  founders  of  American  liberty  organized  a 
government.  *  One  cannot  forget  the  sad  spectacle  that 
America  presented  at  the  moment  when  the  peace  obtained 
by  our  efforts  promised  her  happy  days.  The  newly-born 
republic  just  missed  dying  in  its  cradle.  Fen  yeais  of 
war  had  impoverished  the  country ;  paper-money  had  led 
fatally  to  bankruptcy;  no  credit,  no  money,  no  finance; 
the  weakness  of  the  central  power  encouraged  the  mde- 

i  Etudes  morales  et  politiques,  Par  Edouard  Laboulaye,  p.  265. 


108  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

pendence  of  the  particular  States ;  disunion  was  every¬ 
where  ;  anarchy  and  sedition  threatened  with  approaching 
ruin  that  new  government,  the  impotence  of  which  England 
proclaimed  with  a  secret  joy ;  and  already  in  America  it¬ 
self,  on  that  soil  where  no  king  had  yet  been,  there  was 
talk  of  a  monarchy  as  the  only  regime  that  could  found 
and  maintain  the  unity  of  a  great  country. 

#  “  Then  it  was,  when  all  seemed  lost,  when  Washington 
himself  began  to  despair  of  the  future,  —  then  it  was  that 
there  were  found  men  clear-sighted  enough  to  see  the 
remedy  for  so  many  evils,  bold  enough  to  propose  it,  and 
devoted  enough  to  undertake  a  work  apparently  impossi¬ 
ble, —  to  reclaim  biassed  opinion,  to  direct  minds  toward  one 
common  end,  and,  spite  of  all  prejudices  and  all  particular 
interests,  to  found  the  Union.  With  no  other  means  than 
speech  and  the  pen,  these  plain  citizens  proclaimed  the 
necessity  of  a  constitution  that  should  unite  so  many 
scattered  members,  caused  Congress  to  adopt  their  project 
of  a  revisory  convention,  determined  the  country  in  the 
choice  of  its  institutions,  defended  these  institutions  against 
the  attacks  of  passion  or  of  error,  and,  by  dint  of  patience 
and  courage,  finally  endowed  America  with  that  democratic 
organization  which  constitutes  its  strength  and  greatness. 

“  Such  was  the  work  of  Franklin,  Randolph,  Madison, 
Jay,  and  of  those  two  men  united  by  a  constant  friendship, 
and  whom  history  will  never  separate,  —  the  one,  Wash¬ 
ington,  the  grandest  character  of  modern  times  in  his 
disinterestedness  and  his  perseverance  ;  the  hero  who  under 
a  stern  front  concealed  the  passion  that  ruled  his  whole 
life,  —  the  love  of  country  and  of  liberty :  the  other,  that 
loving  soul,  that  generous  heart,  that  ready  mind,  which 
fortune  found  always  at  its  level;  that  soldier,  orator, 
writer,  legislator,  financier,  who  was  by  turns  the  arm,  the 
pen,  and  sometimes  the  thought,  of  Washington,  —  the 
brave,  the  chivalrous,  the  unfortunate  Hamilton.  The 
separation  of  powers,  the  independence  of  the  President 
and  the  administration,  guaranties  against  usurpation  by 
the  assembly,  the  role  of  the  judicial  power,  the  distribu¬ 
tion  of  the  right  of  suffrage,  communal  and  provincial 
liberty,  individual  liberty,  right  of  association,  liberty  of 
the  press,  there  is  not  one  of  these  delicate  questions, 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


109 


which,  after  protracted  examination  by  the  legislators  of 
the  United  States,  was  not  settled  with  admirable  wisdom 
and  reason.  Upon  the  merit  of  their  solution,  time,  that 
irrefragable  judge,  has  pronounced  without  appeal.” 1 

We  have  seen  that  the  Colonies  went  to  war  with  the 
mother-country  without  organizing  a  distinctive  govern¬ 
ment,  and  without  even  contemplating  a  change  in  the 
form  of  government  under  which  they  had  hitherto  lived. 
The  Continental  Congress  that  met  in  Philadelphia  in  May, 
1775,  was  an  extemporized  assembly  for  counsel  and  con¬ 
ciliation.  Recognizing  the  war  that  had  begun  at  Lexing¬ 
ton  and  Concord  as  the  common  cause  of  the  Colonies,  it 
adopted  the  army  of  New  England  as  the  Continental 
army,  and  appointed  Washington  to  the  chief  command, 
but  at  the  same  time  declared,  “We  have  not  raised  armies 
with  designs  of  separating  from  Great  Britain,  and  estab¬ 
lishing  independent  States.  Necessity  has  not  yet  driven 
us  into  that  desperate  measure.”  And  this  was  after  the 
battle  of  Bunker  Hill  would  seem  to  have  made  separa¬ 
tion  both  a  necessity  and  a  duty.2  As  Washington  passed 
through  New  York  on  his  way  to  his  command,  the  legis¬ 
lature  of  that  province  presented  him  with  an  address,  in 
which  they  spoke  of  u  an  accommodation  with  the  mother- 
country  ”  as  “  the  fondest  wish  of  every  American  soul.” 
And  in  his  reply  Washington  said,  “  Be  assured  that  every 
exertion  of  my  worthy  colleagues  and  myself  will  be 
extended  to  the  re-establishment  of  peace  and  harmony 
between  the  mother-country  and  these  Colonies.  As  to 
the  fatal  but  necessary  operations  of  war,  when  we  assumed 
the  soldier,  we  did  not  lay  aside  the  citizen  ;  and  we  shall 
most  sincerely  rejoice  with  you  in  that  happy  hour,  when 
the  establishment  of  American  liberty  on  the  most  firm 
and  solid  foundations  shall  enable  us  to  return  to  our  pri- 
.  vate  stations  n  the  bosom  of  a  free,  peaceful,  and  happy 
country.”  3 

Within  a  year,  we  find  the  Congress  at  Philadelphia 
forced  to  declare  that  very  separation  from  Great  Britain 

1  Etudes  morales  et  politiques,  pp.  279-281. 

2  The  battle  of  Bunker  Hill  was  June  17;  this  declaration  of  Congress 

on  the  Gth  of  July  following  (1775).  .  .  .  . 

3  Pennsylvania  Journal,  July  5, 1775;  see  in  Moore’s  Diary  of  the  Ameri¬ 
can  Devolution. 


110  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


which  it  had  disavowed  as  u  a  desperate  measure.”  Thus 
sprang  into  being  the  union  of  “  free  and  independent 
States,”  at  war  with  the  greatest  naval  power  of  the  world, 
yet  having  no  executive  head,  and  no  government  but  a 
Congress  of  less  than  sixty  members,  originally  chosen 
while  the  Colonies  were  yet  subject  to  the  mother-country, 
and  for  the  main  purpose  of  securing  the  liberties  of  the 
Colonies  in  harmony  with  their  allegiance  to  the  crown. 
In  organizing  the  Continental  army,  and  in  declaring  inde¬ 
pendence,  Congress  knew  that  it  was  backed  by  the  will 
of  the  people :  it  found  the  state  of  war  existing,  and 
made  provision  for  it.  The  war  necessitated  independence, 
and  Congress  proclaimed  the  fact.  It  must  needs  stand 
by  its  own  proclamation,  and  go  on  to  govern  the  nation 
it  had  ushered  into  being.  To  change  front  in  face  of  an 
enemy  is  always  a  difficult  and  dangerous  manoeuvre ;  and 
Mr.  Lincoln’s  homely  adage,  u  Don’t  swap  horses  in  the 
middle  of  the  stream,”  justifies  the  Congress  in  not 
attempting  to  create  a  radically  new  government  at  the 
very  moment  of  defying  and  irritating  the  enemy  by  the 
declaration  of  independence.  Though  Congress  exceeded 
its  original  powers,  its  government  was  not  a  usurpation, 
but  a  necessity.  Quickened  by  the  flames  of  war,  the 
nation  was  struggling  through  a  political  chaos  toward  its 
own  organic  life. 

With  the  exception  of  Washington  himself,  who  never 
underrated  the  gravity  of  the  situation,  the  leaders  of 
the  Revolution  seem  to  have  fancied  that  the  war  would 
be  soon  over ;  that  a  single  campaign  would  satisfy  Britain 
of  the  impossibility  of  subjugating  America,  and  bring  her 
to  conditions  of  peace.  But  when  Britain  continued  to 
send  fleets  and  armies  swollen  by  mercenaries,  and  Wash¬ 
ington  reported,  that  having  little  ammunition,  and  no 
regulars,  he  could  only  act  on  the  defensive,  Congress  was 
obliged  to  rouse  itself  for  a  conflict  of  indefinite  duration, 
and  perhaps  doubtful  issue,  and  in  this  emergency  found 
itself  without  authority,  without  money,  without  supplies, 
except  in  the  spontaneity  of  popular  enthusiasm.  Now, 
popular  enthusiasm  is  apt  to  subside  under  disappointment, 
disaster,  or  delay ;  and  a  legislative  body  chosen  to  repre¬ 
sent  the  popular  will  is  sure  to  wane  in  authority  and 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


Ill 


influence,  unless  often  refreshed  by  new  elections  from  the 
people.  So  was  it  with  the  Long  Parliament  in  England  ; 
so  was  it  with  the  French  Assembly  of  Bordeaux  that 
prolonged  itself  to  weariness  at  Versailles;  and  so  too,  a 
century  ago,  as  the  war  of  the  American  Revolution  began 
to  drag,  and  the  original  force  of  cohesion  under  pressure 
was  somewhat  relaxed,  the  people  showed  an  increasing 
reluctance  to  allow  a  Congress  that  was  chosen  for  an 
occasional  emergency  of  counsel  to  transform  itself  into  a 
permanent  government  of  power  ;  and  the  Congress  itself, 
conscious  of  its  inability  to  provide  the  sinews  of  war,  or 
to  enforce  its  own  acts,  early  took  measures  for  a  govern¬ 
ment  suited  to  the  new  condition  of  the  country.  In  these 
steps  it  followed,  not  theory,  but  experience,  as  its  guide. 

Franklin,  whose  practical  sense  was  almost  an  equiva¬ 
lent  for  prophetic  sagacity,  was  the  first  to  propose  “  Arti¬ 
cles  of  Confederation  and  Perpetual  Union,”  which  he  did 
as  early  as  July  21, 1775,  —  almost  a  year  before  the  Decla¬ 
ration  of  Independence :  and,  a  month  before  that  act, 
Congress  had  appointed  a  committee  to  devise  a  plan  of 
confederation  ;  the  notion  of  some  being,  that  the  formation 
of  a  government  ought  to  precede  the  assumption  of  a 
station  among  sovereigns.  So  complicated,  however,  was 
the  question  of  a  united  central  government,  that  it  was 
not  until  Nov.  15, 1777,  that  Congress  adopted  such  a  plan, 
and  not  till  March,  1781,  that  this  went  into  operation  as  a 
government  ratified  by  all  the  States.  A  few  years  sufficed 
to  demonstrate  the  utter  failure  of  this  scheme ;  but  the 
experiment  was  necessary  to  show  the  futility  of  a  confed¬ 
eracy  of  independent  States  upon  the  broad  and  diversified 
theatre  of  the  American  continent,  and  to  prepare  the 
way  for  that  National  Constitution  which  is  the  highest 
product  of  political  wisdom  yet  wrought  out  for  combining 
liberty  with  order,  equality  with  unity,  co-ordinate  self- 
government  with  supreme  central  sovereignty.  The 
framers  of  the  Confederacy  failed  through  following  prece¬ 
dents  not  suited  to  their  condition,  and  by  fearing  to 
clothe  free  institutions  with  the  power  needful  for  their 
security,  lest  this  should  be  turned  to  their  destruction : 
the  framers  of  the  Constitution  succeeded  by  providing  in 
government  itself  a  method  and  a  motive  for  preserving 


112  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

free  institutions  from  that  disintegration  to  which  they 
tend  alike  through  their  inertia  in  times  of  security,  and 
their  centrifugal  force  in  times  of  danger.  The  study  of 
the  failure  will  enable  us  the  better  to  appreciate  the 
success. 

The  Congress  of  17T6  had  before  them  these  precedents 
in  American  history  to  guide  them  in  framing  a  govern¬ 
ment:  first,  the  practice  of  local  self-government,  under 
various  forms,  in  all  the  Colonies ;  and,  secondly ,  the 
occasional  union  of  the  Colonies,  upon  equal  terms,  for 
counsel  or  action  for  preserving  their  several  liberties,  or 
guarding  against  some  impending  danger.  They  had 
been  called  into  existence  by  local  assemblies,  regularly 
or  irregularly  convened,  which  represented  the  right 
and  interest  of  the  people  in  governing  themselves  ;  and 
their  union  —  first  as  a  Congress  of  all  the  Colonies,  and 
now  of  the  independent  States  —  was  for  the  very  purpose 
of  maintaining  the  liberties  of  the  people  under  their  forms 
of  local  independence.  Hence  it  was  natural,  that,  in 
framing  a  government  to  perpetuate  union,  they  should 
make  it  their  first  care  to  secure  the  independence  of  the 
States,  and  keep  intact,  their  sovereignty.  They  took  up 
arms  for  the  independence  of  the  Colonies  of  a  control 
outside  of  themselves.  The  usurpations  of  king  and  par¬ 
liament  upon  their  prerogative  of  local  government  had 
made  them  jealous  of  any  central  head,  executive  or  legis¬ 
lative  ;  and  the  States  would  not  consent  that  Congress 
should  directly  enroll  an  army,  but  retained  the  control  of 
their  several  quotas,  lest,  in  the  pride  of  victory,  some 
ambitious  general  might  use  the  army  to  overawe  the 
liberties  of  the  people.1 

Outside  of  their  colonial  experience,  the  Congress  of 
1776  had  no  recent  examples  to  guide  them  but  the 
republics  of  Switzerland  and  of  the  Netherlands,  and 
these  both  were  confederacies ;  and,  in  point  of  fact,  the 
confederation  that  Congress  finally  commended  to  the 

1  Washington  frequently  complained  of  this  dependence  of  the  army 
upon  so  many  local,  scattered,  and  sometimes  jealous  and  discordant 
heads,  as  impairing  its  unity  and  efficiency,  preventing  the  formation  of 
veteran  and  disciplined  troops,  and  often  crippling  his  resources  on  the 
eve  of  important  movements.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  greatly  pro¬ 
longed  the  war  of  independence,  and,  at  times,  made  its  issue  dubious. 


ADOPTION"  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


113 

States  was  modelled  as  nearly  as  possible  upon  the  union 
of  Utrecht  ot  1579..  The  five  provinces  of  the  Nether¬ 
lands  that  entered  into  the  compact  of  Utrecht  agreed 
that  .  each  province  should  retain  its  particular  privileges, 
liberties,  laudable  and  traditional  customs,  and  other 
laws  ;  that  the  provinces  should  defend  each  other  against 
all  foreign  or  domestic  potentates,  provinces,  or  cities, 
provided  such  defence  were  controlled  by  the  generality 
of  the  union  ;  that  no  truce  or  peace  was  to  be  concluded, 
no  war  commenced,  no  import  established,  affecting  the 
generality,  but  by  unanimous  advice  and  consent  of  the 
provinces ;  and  none  of  the  united  provinces,  or  of  their 
cities  or  corporations,  were  to  make  treaties  with  other 
potentates  or  states  without  consent  of  their  confeder¬ 
ates.”1 

Each  of  these  features  is  found  in  the  44  Articles  of 
Confederation  and  Perpetual  Union”  under  which’  the 
United  States  of  America  were  organized  in  1781.  The 
Confederacy  was  a  44  league  of  friendship  ”  between  inde¬ 
pendent  States,  44  for  their  common  defence,  the  security 
ot  their  liberties,  and  their  mutual  and  general  welfare.” 
Its  fundamental  article  declared,  44  Each  State  retains  its 
sovereignty,  freedom,  and  independence,  and  every  power, 
jurisdiction,  and  right  which  is  not  by  this  Confederation 
expressly  delegated  to  the  United  States  in  Congress 
assembled.”  This  Congress  consisted  of  a  single  house : 
its  .members  were  appointed  annually  by  authority  of  the 
egisl at uies  of  the  States;  and  each  State  could  recall  its 
delegates  during  the  year,  and  send  others  in  their  stead. 
Each  State  maintained  its  delegates  at  its  own  cost.  The 
voting  in  Congress  was  by  States :  each  State  had  but  one 
vote.  .  No  act  could  be  passed  without  the  consent  of  a 
majority  of  the.  States  ;  and,  in  many  cases,  the  consent  of 
nine  of  the  thirteen  States  was  required.  Though  Con- 
giess  had  the  right  and  power  of  determining  on  peace 
and  war,  of  sending  and  receiving  ambassadors,  and  enter- 
lng.  into,  tieaties  and  alliances,  yet,  in  case  of  invasion  or 
ot  imminent  danger,  a  single  State  could  go  to  war,  and 
equip  an  army  and  navy  of  its  own :  and  also,  with  the 
sanction  of  Congress,  two  or  more  States  could  enter  into 

1  Motley:  Dutch  Republic,  vol.  iii.  411,  412. 


114  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

a  special  treaty  or  confederation  between  themselves,  and 
single  States  could  make  a  commercial  or  other  alliance 
with  foreign  powers.  The  charges  of  war,  and  other 
expenses  incurred  by  Congress  for  the  common  defence 
and  general  welfare,  were  assessed  upon  the  several  States 
in  proportion  to  the  value  of  all  land  granted  or  surveyed 
within  each  State ;  but  the  quota  of  a  State  could  be 
raised  only  by  the  authority  and  direction  of  its  own  legis¬ 
lature.  The  Confederacy  had  no  judiciary  to  enforce  its 
acts,  and  no  executive  head  to  represent  and  administer 
its  authority  :  from  first  to  last,  it  was  a  compact  between 
States  whose  independent  sovereignty  was  jealously  guard¬ 
ed  at  every  point.  Such  a  compact  must  fall  to  pieces  as 
soon  as  the  necessity  was  over  that  called  it  into  being, 
and,  indeed,  because  of  that  very  necessity. 

It  is  true  that  in  Switzerland  we  have  an  example  of  a 
confederacy  of  independent  cantons  without  a  personal 
head ;  the  executive  and  administrative  authority  being 
vested  in  a  federal  council  of  seven.  But  this  is  possible, 
because,  first,  the  area  of  Switzerland,1  being  only  one  two 
hundred  and  twenty-fifth  part  of  the  area  of  the  United 
States,  is  so  small  as  to  admit  of  direct  democratic  govern¬ 
ment,  as  in  the  cantonal  assemblies  of  Appenzell,  Ausser, 
Rhoden,  Uri,  and  Unterwalden,  and  in  subdivisions  of 
other  cantons ;  and,  next,  because  the  constant  pressure 
of  external  danger  gives  to  the  Swiss  Bund  an  internal 
force  of  cohesion  greater  than  the  divisive  tendencies  of 
mountains  and  lakes,  of  language  and  religion.  Should 
the  Swiss  push  their  local  independence  to  the  extreme 
of  separatism,  they  would  fall  a  prey  to  their  powerful 
neighbors.2  Their  union  may  lack  the  massive  strength 
and  the  sunny  warmth  of  their  Alps ;  but  there  is  also  a 
coherence  in  the  glacier  as  it  lies  locked  in  the  arms  of 
the  mountains. 

How  different  the  geographical  and  political  position  of 

1  The  superficial  area  of  Switzerland  is  752  geographical  square  miles; 
that  of  the  United  States,  109,589. 

2  This  came  near  being  the  case  thirty  years  ago,  when  the  Sonderbund, 
or  separate  league  of  the  Catholic  cantons,  furnished  to  France  and  Aus¬ 
tria  a  pretext  for  meddling  in  the  internal  affairs  of  Switzerland.  Noth¬ 
ing  but  the  patriotic  uprising  of  the  people  at  the  call  of  the  Diet,  like 
the  enthusiastic  rally  for  the  Union  in  the  United  States,  saved  Switzerland 
from  being  virtually  appropriated  and  governed  by  the  greater  powers. 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


115 


the  United  States  under  the  Confederation  of  1781 !  The 
thirteen  Colonies,  when  they  entered  upon  the  war  with 
Great  Britain,  occupied,  in  all,  an  area  of  420,892  square 
miles,  stretching  along  a  sea-coast  of  1,300  miles.  B}^  the 
peace  of  1783,  the  title  of  the  United  States  was  secured 
to  all  the  territory  claimed  by  Great  Britain  east  of  the 
Mississippi,  south  of  Canada,  north  of  Florida  and  of 
the  thirty-first  parallel,  —  a  total  area  of  827,844  square 
miles ;  being  fifty-four  times  greater  than  the  whole  area 
of  the  Swiss  Confederation.  The  independence  of  the 
United  States  having  been  acknowledged  by  Great  Britain 
and  the  leading  powers  of  Continental  Europe,  the  Ameri¬ 
can  Confederacy,  separated  from  them  all  by  an  ocean 
not  yet  traversed  by  steam,  had  few  dangers  or  fears  from 
without.  Hence,  as  I  have  hinted,  the  very  emergency 
that  compelled  the  States  to  co-operation  for  war  would 
intensify  their  individuality  on  the  return  of  peace.  That 
emergency  was.  the  preservation  of  local  self-government ; 
and  the  doctrine  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
touching  the  right  of  the  people  to  have  a  government 
satisfactory  to  themselves,  if  pressed  to  an  extreme,  might 
encourage  a  State  in  maintaining  its  own  sovereignty 
apart,  and  contending  for  its  own  interests  against  the 
claims  of  the  Confederacy. 

This  would  indeed  have  been  a  perversion  of  the  Decla¬ 
ration,  as  well  in  letter  as  in  spirit.  That  was-“  a  decla¬ 
ration  by  the  representatives  of  the  United  States  of 
America :  ”  it  spoke  “  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority 
of  the  good  people  of  the  Colonies,”  in  their  totality  as  one 
political  commonwealth,  and  declared  “  that  these  United 
Colonies  are,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  free  and  independ¬ 
ent  States.”  The  Colonies,  as  united  through  their  Con¬ 
gress,  constituted  a  new  body  politic,  which  declared 
itself  a  separate  and  independent  power  among  the  na¬ 
tions.  But  an  independence  which  was  based  upon  union 
could  not  logically  imply  that  any  State  could  declare 
itself  independent  of  the  rest.  Nevertheless,  there  was  a 
lurking  danger  in  this  direction.  J ust  as  to  usurpation 
from  without  was  opposed  the  union  of  “  free  and  inde¬ 
pendent  States,”  so  to  the  danger  of  a  central  control 
from  within  would  be  opposed  the  centrifugal  force  of 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

local  independence.  And  so  indeed  it  was.  Congress 
had  assessed  the  several  States  in  due  proportion  for  the 
debt  of  the  war  of  independence ;  but  some  of  the  States 
took  no  measures  for  providing  their  quota,  and  one  posi¬ 
tively  refused  to  do  any  thing  toward  the-  liquidation  of 
that  sacred  charge.1  Peace  was  proclaimed  Sept.  3,  1783. 
On  the  25th  February,  1787,  Mr.  Madison  wrote  to  Ed¬ 
mund  Randolph,  “No  money  comes  into  the  Federal  treas¬ 
ury  ;  no  respect  is  paid  to  the  Federal  authority  ;  and 
people  of  reflection  unanimously  agree  that  the  existing 
Confederacy  is  tottering  to  its  foundation.  Many  indi¬ 
viduals  of  weight,  particularly  in  the  Eastern  District,  are 
suspected  of  leaning  toward  monarchy.  Other  individuals 
predict  a  partition  of  the  States  into  two  or  more  confed¬ 
eracies.”  2  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey  on  the  one  hand, 
Virginia  and  Maryland  on  the  other,  had  entered  into 
special  compacts  without  the  consent  of  Congress ;  and  the 
legislature  of  Virginia  not  only  refused  to  apply  for  the 
sanction  of  Congress,  but  actually  voted  against  the  com¬ 
munication  of  the  compact  to  Congress.3  Georgia  and  Mas¬ 
sachusetts  had  raised  troops  without  consent  of  Congress  ; 
Connecticut  had  taxed  imports  from  Massachusetts  ;  some 
of  the  seaboard  States  had  taxed  adjoining  States  that 
must  trade  through  them  ;  some,  by  their  navigation  laws, 
“  treated  the  citizens  of  other  States  as  aliens.”4  Thus  the 
principle  of  local  self-government  was  pushing  itself  to 
the  destruction  of  co-operation  even  for  the  public  order 
and  safety ;  the  centrifugal  force  of  separatism  was  rend¬ 
ing  the  Confederacy  asunder. 

With  great  clearness  Mr.  Madison  pointed  out  that 
“  the  radical  infirmity  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation 
was  the  dependence  of  Congress  on  the  voluntary  and 
simultaneous  compliance  with  its  requisitions  by  so  many 
independent  communities,  each  consulting  more  or  less  its 
particular  interests  and  convenience,  and  distrusting  the 
compliance  of  the  others.”5  And  Mr.  Wilson  of  Pennsyl- 


1  New  Jersey  in  1786:  see  Journals  of  Congress,  vol.  iv.  p.  622.  Ac¬ 
cording  to  Mr.  Madison,  Connecticut  likewise  refused  to  pass  a  law  for 
complying  with  the  requisitions  of  Congress  (Hives's  Life  of  Madison,  ii. 

p.  108). 

2  Papers  of  James  Madison  (ed.  1820),  vol.  ii.  620.  3  Ibid.,  p.  712. 

4  Ibid.,  ii.  711,  712.  5  Ibid.,  ii.  602. 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


117 


vania1  thus  sharply  satirized  the  change  that  had  come 
over  public  sentiment  since  the  pressure  of  a  common  dan¬ 
ger  was  withdrawn :  “  Among  the  first  sentiments  ex¬ 
pressed  in  the  first  Congress,  one  was,  that  Virginia  is  no 
more,  that  Massachusetts  is  no  more,  that  Pennsylvania 
is  no  more:  we  are  now  one  nation  of  brethren;  we 
must  bury  all  local  interests  and  distinctions.  This  lan¬ 
guage  continued  for  some  time.  The  tables  at  length 
began  to  turn.  No  sooner  were  the  State  governments 
formed  than  their  jealousy  and  ambition  began  to  display 
themselves :  each  endeavored  to  cut  a  slice  from  the  com¬ 
mon  loaf  to  add  to  its  own  morsel,  till  at  length  the  Con¬ 
federation  became  frittered  down  to  the  impotent  condi¬ 
tion  in  which  it  now  stands.” 

The  perils  of  the  Confederacy  brought  Washington 
fiom  his  letirement  to  save  by  his  counsels  the  liberty  he 
had  won  by  his  sword.  u  No  morn,”  said  he,  “  ever 
dawned  more  favorably  than  ours  did,  and  no  day  was 
ever  more  clouded  than  the  present.  .  .  .  We  are  fast 
verging  to  anarchy  and  confusion.  Thirteen  sovereignties 
Pulling  against  each  other,  and  all  tugging  at  the  Federal 
head,  will  soon  bring  ruin  on  the  whole.”2  “What  a 
triumph  for  our  enemies  to  verify  their  predictions ! 
What  a  triumph  for  the  advocates  of  despotism  to  find 
that  we  are  incapable  of  governing  ourselves,  and  that 
systems  founded  on  the  basis  of  equal  liberty  are  merely 
ideal  and  fallacious !  ”  3  In  a  word,  the  centrifugal  ten¬ 
dency  of  local  self-government  had  well-nigh  separated  the 
Confederacy  into  its  primitive  atoms. 

This  process  of  disintegration  was  favored  by  that 
inertia  which  seems  to  paralyze  free  institutions  in  times 
of  outward  security.  In  hereditary  forms  of  government, 
monarchical  or  aristocratic,  there  is  always  a  class  to 
whom  government  is  an  occupation,  and  the  exercise  or 
conservation  of  power  is  the  business  of  life.  Like  the 
royal  house  of  Prussia,  they  are  trained  to  government  as 
a  profession ;  like  the  House  of  Lords  in  England,  they 
must  care  for  government  as  a  necessity  of  their  own 
existence.  They  cannot  let  government  alone,  lest  it  slip 

i  Papers  of  Madison,  ii.  825. 

o  better  to  Madison,  Nov.  5,  3  786:  see  in  Sparks  and  in  Madison. 

3  Letter  to  Jay,  1st  August,  1786. 


118  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

altogether  from  their  hands.  But  Freedom  asks  for  noth¬ 
ing  so  much  as  to  be  let  alone.  She  wishes  neither  to 
govern  nor  to  be  governed ;  and  though  fierce  as  a  lioness 
for  her  cubs  when  her  retreat  is  threatened,  yet  she  loves 
to  rest  unconscious  of  danger,  and,  unless  pressed  for  life, 
will  molest  none  who  do  not  molest  her.  But  as  with  the 
human  constitution,  so  with  the  constitution  of  civil 
society,  inertia  is  fatal  to  life.  Unless  something  be  done 
to  excite  its  powers  to  activity,  these  will  presently  sink 
into  decay,  or  succumb  to  the  first  disorder.  Hence,  for 
the  preservation  of  free  institutions,  there  must  be  some 
device  for  investing  government  with  dignity,  responsibil¬ 
ity,  and  authority,  so  that  it  shall  be  an  object  to  wise  and 
good  men  to  devote  their  lives  to  public  affairs,  to  make 
statemanship  their  science,  and  politics  their  profession. 
True,  this  would  also  make  government  a  prize  for  the 
ambitious  and  designing;  but,  under  any  system,  we  must 
take  the  risks  of  human  nature  as  it  is,  and  compound 
with  it  on  the  best  terms  possible.  Left  to  their  own 
inertia,  free  institutions  will  die  of  inanition,  or  fall  a  prey 
to  faction,  conspiracy,  or  invasion.  But  a  strong  govern¬ 
ment  set  to  watch  over  liberty  will  provoke  the  vigilance 
that  must  be  the  safeguard  against  its  own  abuse.  Hap¬ 
pily  for  the  life  of  the  American  Bepublic,  there  were  at 
that  day  men  who  had  the  perspicacity  to  see  this,  and  the 
courage  to  avow  it ;  chief  among  them  Alexander  Hamil¬ 
ton  and  George  Washington.  Hamilton  viewed  the  crisis 
from  the  lower  plane  of  human  passions  and  political 
experiences ;  Washington,  with  the  comprehensive  wis¬ 
dom  and  supreme  moral  judgment  that  marked  the  slow 
but  certain  processes  of  his  mind.  Hamilton  argued  that 
“  the  great  and  essential  principles  for  the  support  of  gov¬ 
ernment  are,  (1)  An  active  and  constant  interest  in 
supporting  it;  (2)  The  love  of  power;  (3)  An  habitual 
attachment  of  the  people,  its  sovereignty  being  immedi¬ 
ately  before  their  eyes,  its  protection  immediately  enjoyed 
by  them;  (4)  Force,  by  which  may  be  understood  a 
coercion  of  laws,  or  coercion  of  arms ;  (5)  Influence,  or 
a  dispensation  of  those  regular  honors  and  emoluments 
which  produce  an  attachment  to  the  government.'’  But, 
by  the  confederate  system,  u  all  the  passions  of  avarice, 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION.  ^19 

ambition,  interest,  which  govern  most  individuals  and 
all  public  bodies,  fall  into  the  current  of  the  States,  and 
do  not  flow  into  the  stream  of  the  General  Government. 
The  former,  therefore,  will  generally  be  an  overmatch  for 
the  General  Government,  and  render  any  confederacy  in 
its  very  nature  precarious.”  1  Hence  Hamilton  contended 
for  a  national  government,  in  distinction  from  “  an  associa¬ 
tion  of  independent  communities  into  a  federal  govern¬ 
ment.”  After  a  fair  trial  of  confederation,  Washington 
wrote,  “  I  confess  that  my  opinion  of  public  virtue  is  so 
far  changed,  that  I  have  my  doubts  whether  any  system, 
without  the  means  of  coercion  in  the  sovereign,  will 
enforce  due  obedience  to  the  ordinances  of  a  general 
government,  without  which  every  thing  else  fails.”  And 
again:  “  We  have  probably  had  too  good  an  opinion  of 
human  nature  in  forming  our  confederation.  Experience 
has  taught  us  that  men  will  not  adopt  and  carry  into  exe¬ 
cution  measures  the  best  calculated  for  their  own  good, 
without  the  intervention  of  a  coercive  power.  I  do  not 
conceive  we  can  long  exist  as  a  nation,  without  having 
lodged  somewhere  a  power  which  will  pervade  the  whole 
Union  in  as  energetic  a  manner  as  the  authority  of  the 
State  governments  extends  over  the  several  States.” 2 
Yet  Washington  was  thoroughly  opposed  to  the  idea  of  a 
monarchy  as  the  solution  of  the  problem,  and  had  spurned 
with  indignation  the  suggestion  of  the  army  that  he  should 
make  himself  king  or  dictator. 

It  was  for  Madison  to  point  out  how  that  control  of  the 
whole,  that  Washington  and  Hamilton  insisted  on,  could 
be  secured  with  safety  to  the  parts.  “  Congress,”  he  said, 
“  have  kept  the  vessel  from  sinking ;  but  it  has  been  by 
standing  constantly  at  the  pump,  not  by  stopping  the  leaks 
which  have  endangered  her.”  3  He  pointed  out  that  “  the 
great  desideratum  in  government  is  such  a  modification  of 
the  sovereignty  as  will  render  it  sufficiently  neutral  between 
the  different  interests  and  factions  to  control  one  part  of  the 
society  from  invading  the  rights  of  another,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  sufficiently  controlled  itself  from  setting  up  an 

1  For  an  abstract  of  Hamilton’s  great  speecli  in  the  Federal  Convention, 
see  Madison  Papers,  ii.  878—803. 

2  Letter  to  Jay,  Aug.  1,  1780. 

3  Letter  to  Jelferson,  Oct.  3, 1785;  Hives,  ii.  41. 


120  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


interest  adverse  to  tliat  of  the  whole  society.” 1  How  com¬ 
pletely  the  Confederacy  had  failed  of  this  is  shown  by  an 
analysis  of  the  system  put  forth  by  a  statesman  of  that 
period :  u  By  this  political  compact,  the  United  States  in 
Congress  have  exclusive  power  for  the  following  purposes, 
without  being  able  to  execute  one  of  them  :  — 

“1.  They  may  make  and  conclude  treaties,  but  can  only 
recommend  the  observance  of  them. 

u  2.  They  may  appoint  ambassadors,  but  cannot  defray 
even  the  expenses  of  their  tables. 

“  3.  They  may  borrow  money  in  their  own  name,  on  the 
faith  of  the  Union,  but  cannot  pay  a  dollar. 

“  4.  They  may  coin  money ;  but  they  cannot  purchase 
an  ounce  of  bullion. 

“  5.  They  may  make  war,  and  determine  what  number 
of  troops  are  necessary,  but  cannot  raise  a  single  soldier. 

“  6.  In  short,  they  may  declare  every  thing,  but  do  noth¬ 
ing .” 

From  the  fatal  collapse  of  free  government  that  the 
wisest  statesmen  of  the  Confederacy  feared,  there  were 
but  two  ways  of  escape,  —  the  one  by  the  division  of  the 
Confederacy  into  smaller  republics,  that  should  be  related 
to  each  other,  as  to  foreign  powers,  by  treaties  of  commerce 
and  alliance  ;  the  other  by  the  erection  of  a  strong  central 
national  government.  The  first  of  these  was  already  talked 
of,  especially  by  some  extreme  advocates  of  practical  de¬ 
mocracy  and  state  sovereignty  in  Massachusetts.  A  letter 
of  Mr.  Monroe  to  Patrick  Henry,  dated  New  York,  12th 
August,  1786,  contains  this  apparently  authentic  state¬ 
ment  :  “  Committees  are  held  in  this  town,  of  Eastern  men, 
and  others  of  this  State,  upon  the  subject  of  a  dismem¬ 
berment  of  the  States  east  of  the  Hudson  from  the  Union, 
and  the  erection  of  them  into  a  separate  government.  To 
what  length  they  have  gone  I  know  not,  but  have  assur¬ 
ances  as  to  the  truth  of  the  above  position,  with  this  addi¬ 
tion  to  it,  that  the  measure  is  talked  of  in  Massachusetts 
familiarly,  and  is  supposed  to  have  originated  there.  The 
plan  of  the  government  in  all  its  modifications  has  even 
been  contemplated  by  them.” 2 

1  Paper  on  tlie  Vices  of  tlie  Political  System  of  tlie  United  States, 
April,  17<S7;  Rive's,  ii.  210. 

2  Hives’s  Life  of  Madison,  ii.  122. 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION.  121 

On  the  other  hand,  Washington,  in  his  circular  letter  to 
the  governors  of  the  several  States  just  before  he  retired 
from  the  army,  had  strongly  urged  that  the  States  should 
yield  to  the  General  Government  the  powers  necessary  to 
provide  against  anarchy  and  confusion.  u  It  is  indispensa¬ 
ble,”  he  said,  “  to  the  happiness  of  the  individual  States, 
that  there  should  be  lodged  somewhere  a  supreme  power 
to  regulate  and  govern  the  general  concerns  of  the  confed¬ 
erated  republic.  .  .  .Whatever  measures  have  a  tendency 
to  dissolve  the  Union,  or  contribute  to  violate  or  lessen  its 
sovereign  authority,  ought  to  be  considered  hostile  to  the 
liberty  and  independence  of  America,  and  the  authors  of 
them  treated  accordingly.”  1 

Happily  for  the  preservation  of  that  liberty  and  inde¬ 
pendence,  the  outbreak  of  rebellion  put  an  end  to  the 
scheme  of  independent  State  sovereignties,  even  in  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  where,  perhaps,  the  feeling  against  a  strong 
national  government  was  most  jealous  and  active.  The 
armed  resistance  of  Shays  and  his  followers,  in  1786,  to 
the  collection  of  taxes,  and  the  enforcement  of  private 
claims,  found  much  sympathy  among  the  people  ;  and,  in 
some  cases,  town-officers  went  so  far  as  to  order  their  mili¬ 
tia  to  co-operate  with  the  rebels.2  The  civil  courts  were 
declared  to  be  “  engines  of  destruction,”  and  were  broken 
up  by  an  armed  mob ;  the  State  Senate  was  denounced  as 
a  “  needless  and  aristocratic  branch  of  the  government ;  ”  3 
the  tax-gatherers  were  forcibly  resisted  ;  the  Federal  arsenal 
at  Springfield  was  attacked  by  a  force  of  two  thousand 
men :  in  a  word,  there  was  an  attempt  to  resolve  society 
into  its  original  elements,  and  to  clothe  the  local  democra¬ 
cy  with  absolute  and  final  sovereignty.4  The  government 
of  Massachusetts  succeeded  in  suppressing  the  rebellion 
by  its  own  arm,  but  not  until  it  had  invoked  the  aid  of 
the  Federal  Congress,  and  Congress  had  raised  a  body  of 
troops  for  that  purpose.5  A  skirmish  at  Springfield,  and 
the  capture  of  the  main  body  of  the  rebels  at  Petersham, 
brought  the  affair  to  an  end,  with  no  great  loss  of  life  ; 

1  Letter  of  8tli  June,  1784:  Sparks’s  Collection. 

2  Wells’s  Life  of  Samuel  Adams,  iii.  229.  .  3  Ibid.,  223. 

4  See  Washington  to  Madison  of  Nov.  5,  178G,  in  Sparks,  vol.  ix.,  and 

Hives’s  Madison,  ii.  175. 

5  Secret  Journals  of  Congress,  i.  2G7-270. 


122  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

but  the  horror  of  anarchy  and  civil  war  produced  a  strong 
re-action  from  the  scheme  of  confederated  democracies, 
and  strengthened  the  movement  for  a  vigorous  national 
government.  Washington  wrote  to  Madison,  44  How  mel¬ 
ancholy  is  the  reflection,  that,  in  so  short  a  time,  we  should 
have  made  such  large  strides  towards  fulfilling  the  predic¬ 
tions  of  our  transatlantic  foes  !  — 4  Leave  them  to  them¬ 
selves,  and  their  government  will  soon  dissolve.’  Will 
not  the  wise  and  good  strive  hard  to  avert  this  evil  ?  or 
will  their  supineness  suffer  ignorance,  and  the  arts  of  self- 
interested,  designing,  disaffected,  and  desperate  characters, 
to  involve  this  great  country  in  wretchedness  and  contempt  ? 
What  stronger  evidence  can  be  given  of  the  want  of  ener¬ 
gy  in  our  government  than  these  disorders?  If  there  is 
not  power  in  it  to  check  them,  what  security  has  a  man 
for  life,  liberty,  or  property? ”  1 

That  was  in  November,  1786.  The  twenty-fifth  day  of 
May,  1787,  witnessed  the  dawn  of  hope.  On  that  day  a 
convention  of  the  States  for  revising  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment  was  organized2  in  Philadelphia,  with  Washington 
as  its  president.  The  convention  sat  till  the  17th  Septem¬ 
ber,  when  it  signed,  and  sent  forth  for  the  approval  of  the 
nation,  that  Constitution  under  which  the  people  of  the 
United  States  have  lived  to  this  day.  At  the  opening  of 
the  convention,  when  a  diversity  of  views  had  provoked 
some  warmth  of  feeling,  Dr.  Franklin  said,  44  We  are  sent 
here  to  consult ,  not  to  contend ,  with  each  other  ;  and  decla¬ 
rations  of  a  fixed  opinion,  and  of  determined  resolution 
never  to  change  it,  neither  enlighten  nor  convince  us.” 
At  the  close,  when  the  deputies  had  signed  the  new  Con¬ 
stitution,  Franklin  pointed  to  the  president’s  chair,  at  the 
back  of  which  a  rising  sun  happened  to  be  painted,  and 
said  that  44  painters  had  found  it  difficult  to  distinguish  in 
their  art  a  rising  from  a  setting  sun.  Often  and  often 
in  the  course  of  the  session,  and  the  vicissitudes  of  my 
hopes  and  fears  as  to  its  issue,  I  have  looked  at  that  behind 
the  president,  without  being  able  to  tell  whether  it  was 
rising  or  setting  ;  but  now  at  length  I  have  the  happiness 

1  Nov.  5,  1780:  see  in  Sparks,  ix.  207. 

2  The  convention  met,  on  Monday,  May  14,  but,  for  lack  of  a  quorum, 
did  not  organize  till  the  25tli. 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


123 


to  know  that  it  is  a  rising  and  not  a  setting  sun.”  Let 
us  hope  the  sun  that  rose  that  day  shall  never  set ! 

Never  man  did  better  service  for  his  country  than 
James  Madison  in  keeping  a  record  of  the  sayings  and 
doings  of  that  remarkable  convention,  that  embraced  such 
men  as  George  Washington,  Benjamin  Franklin,  Alexan¬ 
der  Hamilton,  Roger  Sherman,  the  two  Pinckneys,  Robert 
Morris,  Governeur  Morris,  Rufus  King,  and  James  Madison 
himself.  The  convention  sat  with  closed  doors,  and  no 
report  of  its  debates  was  allowed  to  be  published ;  but 
Madison,  who  was  a  ready  penman,  and  perfectly  conver¬ 
sant  with  the  topics  handled  in  the  convention,  took 
copious  notes  of  the  speeches,  and,  in  the  more  important 
cases,  submitted  these  to  the  revision  of  the  speakers.  On 
the  death  of  Mr.  Madison,  these  invaluable  reports  were 
purchased  for  the  department  of  state ;  and  in  1840  they 
were  published  under  authority  of  Congress,  as  a  legacy  to 
the  nation.  The  testimony  of  Madison  to  his  colleagues 
in  the  convention  is  now  the  recognized  voice  of  history  : 
“  Whatever  may  be  the  judgment  pronounced  on  the  com¬ 
petency  of  the  architects  of  the  Constitution,  or  whatever 
may  be  the  destiny  of  the  edifice  prepared  by  them,  I  feel 
it  a  duty  to  express  my  profound  and  solemn  conviction, 
derived  from  my  intimate  opportunity  of  observing  and 
appreciating  the  views  of  the  convention  collectively  and 
individually,  that  there  never  was  an  assembly  of  men 
charged  with  a  great  and  arduous  trust,  who  were  more 
pure  in  their  motives,  or  more  exclusively  or  anxiously 
devoted  to  the  object  committed  to  them,  than  were  the 
members  of  the  Federal  Convention  of  1787  to  the  object 
of  devising  and  proposing  a  constitutional  system  which 
should  best .  supply  the  defects  of  that  which  it  was  to 
replace,  and  best  secure  the  permanent  liberty  and  happi¬ 
ness  of  their  country.”  1 

From  Friday  the  25th  of  May,  when  it  was  duly  organ¬ 
ized,  till  Monday  the  17th  of  September,  when  the  depu¬ 
ties  of  twelve  States  signed  the  completed  Constitution, 
through  all  the  summer  heats,  the  convention  sat  continu¬ 
ously,  with  no  interruption  except  for  the  Sunday  rest, 
and  an  occasional  day  for  committees  to  finish  their  work. 

1  Introduction  to  Debates  in  the  Convention:  Madison  Papers,  ii.  718. 


124  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

No  committee  was  allowed  to  sit  when  the  convention  was 
in  session,  nor  was  any  member  suffered  to  be  absent 
from  his  place  so  as  to  interrupt  the  representation  of  his 
State.  The  convention  felt  that  it  had  to  do  with  ques¬ 
tions  of  equal  and  momentous  concern  to  each  and  every 
State,  and  therefore  all  the  States  must  be  present  in  their 
deputies  during  the  whole  discussion.  Not  even  the  work 
of  committees  should  be  an  excuse  for  absence.  Those  men 
knew  their  duty,  and  did  it. 

One  rule  of  the  convention  affords  a  glimpse  at  the  man¬ 
ners  of  the  times,  and  shows  how  far  the  fathers  were  from 
the  levelling  practice  of  democracy  :  it  reads,  “  When  the 
house  shall  adjourn,  every  member  shall  stand  in  his  place 
until  the  president  pass  him,”  —  a  practice  that  existed  in 
the  chapel  of  Yale  College  in  my  student  days.  Washing¬ 
ton  himself  was  a  master  of  etiquette,  and  stood  upon  it, 
not  only  in  his  famous  rejection  of  Lord  Howe’s  letter 
to  “George  Washington,  Esq.,”  but  in  official  intercourse 
with  his  own  countrymen.  Senator  Hillhouse  used  to 
give  a  picture  of  the  change  of  manners  from  Washington 
to  Jefferson  by  showing  two  dinner  invitations:  the  first, 
“  The  President  of  the  United  States  requests  the  com¬ 
pany  of  the  senator  of  Connecticut ;  ”  the  second,  “  Mr. 
Jefferson  requests  the  company  of  Mr.  Hillhouse.”  The 
senator  could  never  reconcile  himself  to  that  change  of 
dispensation. 

A  radical  German  of  Berlin  wondered  that  I  halted,  and 
lifted  my  hat  to  the  late  queen-dowager  as  she  drove  by 
on  the  Linden.  I  answered,  “A  republican  should  be 
first  among  gentlemen.”  It  may  suit  “  Young  Ameri¬ 
ca  ”  to  drop  the  handles  of  names,  and  push  and  elbow 
where  the  fathers  used  to  stand  and  wait ;  but  from  my 
deepest  soul  do  I  respect*  an  assembly  in  which  Benjamin 
Franklin,  Oliver  Ellsworth,  Roger  Sherman,  Alexander 
Hamilton,  J ames  Madison,  stood  silent  with  uncovered 
heads  till  George  Washington  passed  by. 

Precious  as  was  the  work  of  the  convention  “  for  the 
liberty  and  happiness  of  the  country,”  it  can  be  best  appre¬ 
ciated  by  contrast  with  the  measures  that  they  canvassed 
and  rejected.  In  those  four  months  of  daily  debate,  every 
theory  of  government  was  ventilated,  every  form  of  con- 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION.  125 

stitution  tested  in  the  light  of  history,  philosophy,  and 
experience.  As  many  an  inventor  might  save  himself 
years  of  toil  and  trouble  by  visiting  the  Patent  Office,  and 
seeing  how  often  his  machine  has  come  to  grief,  so  many 
a  “rising  statesman”  might  spare  himself  and  the  country 
his  patent  schemes  of  government  if  he  should  study  the 
debates  in  the  Federal  Convention  of  1787.  Only  I  sup¬ 
pose  that  while  the  world  stands,  both  in  mechanics  and 
in  government,  there  will  be  ever-recurring  devices  for 
perpetual  motion.  Every  presidential  election  starts  up 
some  crotchet  for  a  better  way  of  getting  presidents,  or  a 
way  of  getting  better  presidents.  Horace  Greeley,  for 
instance,  was  prolific  of  such  crotchets ;  the  latest  being  to 
run  himself  as  the  candidate  of  two  parties  that  disliked 
him  almost  as  much  as  they  distrusted  one  another.  It 
is  an  infelicity  of  the  “  selfmade  ”  man  that  he  imagines 
every  thing  to  be  as  crude  as  the  material  of  which  he 
fashioned  himself,  and,  having  “made  himself,”  feels  equal 
to  making  or  remaking  every  thing  else,  not  excepting 
the  universe  and  its  Maker. 

There  are  schemes  for  extending  the  term  of  the  presi¬ 
dency,  for  limiting  the  office  to  a  single  term,  for  elect¬ 
ing  the  President  directly  by  the  people,  &c.  All  these 
projects,  and  others  also,  were  fully  discussed,  and  finally 
set  aside,  by  the  wisdom  and  weight  of  the  convention. 
At  one  time,  the  formal  draught  of  the  Constitution  pro¬ 
vided  that  the  President  “  shall  be  elected  by  ballot  by 
the  legislature.  He  shall  hold  his  office  during  the  term 
of  seven  years,  but  shall  not  be  elected  a  second  time.” 
Amendments,  were  proposed,  on  the  one  hand,  to  the  ex¬ 
treme  of  a  direct  popular  choice,  like  Louis  Napoleon’s 
joUbiscite ;  on  the  other,  to  the  extreme  of  an  appoint¬ 
ment,  by  the  national  legislature,  “  during  good  behavior,” 
—  a  quality  that  we  should  be  glad  to  predicate  of  the 
legislature  itself.  After  days  of  discussion,  and  much  elab¬ 
oration  in  committees,  the  convention  settled  upon  the 
plan,  which,  with  some  slight  amendments  to  prevent 
confusion  and  rivalry  between  the  offices  of  President  and 
Vice-President,  has  worked  so  long  and  so  well,  —  a  Presi¬ 
dent  chosen  by  popular  electors  for  the  term  of  four  years, 
the  question  of  re-election  being  left  to  the  circum- 


126  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

stances  of  the  hour  and  the  good  sense  of  the  people. 
Mr.  Lincoln  said  to  me,  after  his  nomination  for  a  second 
term,  “I  do  not  pretend  to  be  without  ambition;  yet  I  have 
no  mean  ambition  for  a  re-election:  but  having  carried 
this  burden  of  war  for  four  years,  and  been  often  com¬ 
pelled  to  act  alone,  I  should  like  to  feel  that  my  country¬ 
men  approve  my  course.” 

I  replied,  “Mr.  President,  you  may  count  upon  an 
indorsement  now  in  quarters  where  you  had  least  expected 
it.  I  have  just  returned  from  the  service  of  the  Christian 
and  Sanitary  Commissions  in  Gen.  Sherman’s  army  in 
Tennessee  and  Georgia.  One  day  I  said  to  a  knot  of 
soldiers  who  were  off  duty,  ‘  Boys,  what  are  you  fighting 
for  ?  ’  Their  answers  were  a  touching  and  beautiful  testi¬ 
mony  to  their  patriotism,  and  loyalty  to  the  Union.  One 
of  them  was  an  Irishman ;  and  his  answer  is  worth  repeat¬ 
ing  in  detail.  4  What  I’m  fighting  for,  shure  ?  It  wasn’t 
meeself  that  made  Misther  Lincoln  President.  De’el  the 
bit  of  it !  I’m  a  Dimmycrat,  shure,  an’  I  voted  for  Doug¬ 
las.  But,  you  see,  Misther  Lincoln  was  elected,  an’  so  was 
the  President  by  the  laws.  With  that  they  sez  down 
here  in  the  South,  “Be  jabers!  he  sha’n’t  be  the  President : 
we’ll  break  up  the  Union  first.”  Sez  I,  “  Is  it  that  yer 
afther,  me  boys  !  It’s  meeself'll  be  tayching  ye  better 
manners.”  So  I  shouldered  mee  musket ;  an’,  by  jabers  !  I’ll 
stay  here  till  every  man  of  them  sez  Misther  Lincoln’s 
the  President.’ 

“‘Well,  Pat,’  I  said,  ‘you’ll  soon  have  an  opportunity 
of  voting  for  President  again.  I  shall  go  to  Washington 
soon,  and  see  the  President:  what  shall  I  say  to  him?  ’ 

“‘Would  you  be  afther  giving- him  mee  compliments, 
an’  say  that  it  wasn’t  I  that  made  him  President,  but  it’s 
meeself’ll  do  it  this  time  ;  for  it’s  jest  mee  opinion  that  the 
jontlemon  that  begon  this  job  is  the  one  to  c/o  throuqh  with 
it?’”1 


1  I  notice  it  is  made  a  merit  in  Gov.  Hayes’s  letter  of  acceptance  that 
lie  pledges  himself  not  to  be  a  candidate  for  a  second  term;  but  I  confess 
this  seems  to  detract  from  the  average  manly  dignity  of  the  letter.  It  is 
like  saying,  “  I  fear  to  trust  myself,  and  fear  you  would  not  trust  me,  to 
the  temptations  of  a  second  candidacy.”  But,  if  Mr.  Hayes  is  going  to  re- 
f oi m  and  reconstruct  the  civil  service,  he  will  have  more  than  a  four-years’ 
job  on  his  hands,  and  may  be  just  the  gentleman  to  go  through  with  it. 
lie  should  rather  have  said,  “1  have  not  sought  this  nomination;  but  I 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


127 


Mr.  Lincoln  laughed  heartily  at  the  story;  then  his 
great  tender  eyes  filled  with  emotion  as  he  said,  “  I  am 
glad  I  have  such  friends  among  the  plain  people,  and  glad 
the  country  can  trust  in  such  friends  and  defenders.” 
Yes,  he  was  “  the  gentleman  to  go  through  with  the  job  ” 
he  had  begun.  His  countrymen  testified  that  they  had 
as  much  need  of  him  as  he  of  them ;  yet  the  greatness  of 
the  Constitution  was  shown  in  that  it  could  do  without  him, 
and  meet  his  death  without  a  shock. 

The  Constitution  of  the  national  legislature  was  dis¬ 
cussed  by  the  convention  in  all  its  aspects ;  many  being 
in  favor  of  a  single  house,  such  as  the  Continental  Con¬ 
gress  and  the  Congress  of  the  Confederacy:  but  the 
result  was  that  admirable  composition  of  two  houses, 
which  has  made  the  United  States  a  model  for  all  other 
peoples  attempting  republican  institutions.  Years  after, 
Jefferson,  while  taking  tea  with  Washington,  contended 
for  the  advantages  of  a  single  house.  “Mr.  Jefferson,” 
said  Washington,  “you  have  just  furnished  the  best  argu¬ 
ment  for  two  houses :  your  tea  being  too  hot,  you  poured 
it  from  the  cup  into  the  saucer.”  1  It  has  been  attempted 
to  prove  that  Washington  was  linked  to  our  common 
humanity  by  having  once  got  angry,  and  so  angry  as  to 
utter  an  oath.  That  link  is  not  quite  made  out ;  but  here 
we  have  a  surer  link  with  our  human  nature,  in  that 
Washington  did  once  utter  a  joke,  —  a  bit  of  philosophical 
wit  worthy  of  Franklin. 

accept  it  at  tlie  call  of  my  countrymen.  If  elected,  I  shall  reward  no  par¬ 
tisan,  and  shall  dismiss  no  faithful  and  competent  officer  for  political 
opinions.  My  administration  shall  be  directed  to  the  restoration  of  specie 
payments,  the  reduction  of  the  tariff,  the  reform  of  the  civil  service  the 
protection  of  liberty,  the  establishing  of  confidence  and  peace.  Should 
the  people  ask  me  to  serve  them  again,  I  must  reserve  till  then  the  right  of 
deciding  whether  I  can  give  any  more  of  my  time  and  strength  to  the  pub- 
lic  service.”  Once  fix  the  civil  service  so  that  it  cannot  be  a  political 
machine,  and  the  bugbear  of  terms  vanishes.  What  the  people  need  in 
candidates  is  men  who  cannot  be  ennobled  by  office  ;  but  bavin0*  such 
men  in  Mr.  Adams,  Mr.  Evarts,  and  a  hundred  more,  the  people  do  not  yet 
feel  the  want  of  them,  and  so  amuse  themselves  with  pledges  and  other 
conceits  about  terms  of  office  (October,  187(5). 

1  I  had  this  anecdote  from  the  late  Judge  Daggett  of  New  Haven. 

The  Constitution  of  the  German  Empire,  it  is  true,  provides  for  only 
one  house  of  parliament.  But  the  Bundesratli,  which  is  composed  of 
councillors  who  represent  directly  the  several  governments  of  the  empire 
is  a  check  upon  the  parliament  ;  and  the  ministry  do  not,  as  in  England! 
teel  called  upon  to  resign  in  case  of  an  adverse  vote  of  the  house.  As  yet, 
this  mixed  system  is  an  experiment. 


128  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

Without  going  further  into  detail,  let  me  fix  your  atten¬ 
tion  upon  two  points  in  which  the  wisdom  of  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution  was  conspicuous  in  that  which  they 
rejected.  First,  at  a  time  when  slavery,  or  serfdom,  was 
still  a  common  usage  of  Christian  nations,  they  rejected 
every  proposal  to  introduce  the  term  “  slave  ”  or  u  slave¬ 
ry”  into  the  Constitution;  and  it  is  a  curious  anomaly 
that  these  words  were  first  brought  into  the  Constitution 
through  amendments  proposed  by  abolitionists  after  slavery 
had  ceased  to  exist.  The  Thirteenth  Amendment  declares 
that  “  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  except  as 
a  punishment  for  crime  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been 
duly  convicted,  shall  exist  within  the  United  States,  or 
any  place  subject  to  their  jurisdiction;”  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  provides  that  u  neither  the  United  States  nor 
any  State  shall  assume  or  pay  any  claim  for  the  loss  or 
emancipation  of  any  slave;”  and  the  Fifteenth  Amend¬ 
ment  declares  that  “  the  right  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States  to  vote  shall  not  be  denied  or  abridged  by  the 
United  States  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condi¬ 
tion  of  servitude.”  Here  we  have  “slave,”  “slavery,” 
“  servitude,”  in  the  Constitution,  words  that  never  before 
were  there,  but  were  purposely  kept  out  of  the  instrument 
by  the  men  that  framed  it.  Pending  the  conflict  on  slave¬ 
ry,  the  extreme  wing  of  the  abolitionists  denounced  the 
Constitution  as  “an  agreement  with  hell,”  and  called  for 
a  dissolution  of  the  compact  and  of  the  Union  under  it ; 
that  is,  they  would  have  had  the  North  do,  for  getting  rid 
of  slavery,  the  very  thing  that  it  finally  fought  the  South 
for  attempting  to  do  to  preserve  slavery.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  extreme  wing  of  the  conservatives  held  that  “  the 
compromises  of  the  Constitution  ”  recognized  slavery, 
guaranteed  it  against  invasion,  and  by  consequence  warrant¬ 
ed  all  measures  necessary  to  the  protection  and  preserva¬ 
tion  of  the  system.  Neither  party  read  the  Constitution  in 
the  spirit  or  the  letter  of  its  framers.  Entering  into  public 
affairs  just  when  this  controversy  was  at  the  hottest,  in 
starting  “  The  Independent  ”  I  took  ground  with  my  col¬ 
leagues  that  the  Constitution  was  throughout  an  instru¬ 
ment  of  liberty ;  that  its  framers  designed  it  to  protect  and 
perpetuate  liberty  alone,  but  its  meaning  had  been  over- 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


129 


laid  by  traditions  and  interpretations  that  had  become 
more  current  and  potent  than  the  organic  law.1  That 
this  was  the  true  view  was  proved  by  the  fact,  that  after 
slavery  was  abolished,  though  amendments  were  added  to 
the  Constitution  to  fortify  it  against  the  re-establishment 
of  the  system,  not  one  word  required  to  be  expunged,  nor 
has  been  expunged,  from  the  Constitution  as  it  had  stood 
irom  the  beginning. 

This  view  is  sustained,  also,  by  the  debates  and  doings 
ot  the  Federal  Convention.  The  convention  found  itself 
m  face  of  slavery  as  a  domestic  institution  in  most  of  the 
States,  and  of  the  slave-trade  participated  in  by  some 
States,,  though  prohibited  by  the  majority.2  Again  and 
again  it  was  declared  by  the  delegates  of  North  Carolina, 
South  Carolina,  and  Georgia,  that  those  States  would 
never  assent  to  a  constitution  that  should  prohibit  either 

* ,  n  i  #  #  ~  ^  i  ien,  was  a  dilemma,  the 

giavity  of  which  it  is  not  easy  for  us  at  this  day  to  esti¬ 
mate  ;  or,  I  may  rather  say,  would  be  hard  to  over¬ 
estimate.  Together  the  Colonies  had  fought  the  war  of 
the  Revolution,  and  won  their  independence  as  United 
States.  Together  these  States  had  framed  the  existing 
Confederation  ;  and,  now  that  the  Confederation  was  dis¬ 
solving  for  very  weakness,  they  had  come  together  to 
devise  some  method  of  preserving  the  liberty  and  union 
or  the  country  under  an  appeal  that  declared  “the  situa¬ 
tion  of  the  United  States  so  delicate  and  critical  as  to  call 
for  an  exertion  of  the  united  virtue  and  wisdom  of  all  the 
members  of  the  Confederacy.”  3  They  were  met  in  the 
capacity  of  equal  and  sovereign  States :  they  saw  clearly 


n  ,  aT  th®  Yie^  of  that  stanch  abolitionist  and  consistent  patriot 
Di.  Joshua  Leavitt,  with  whom  I  had  the  honor  to  be  associated  for  so 
many  years  in  the  conduct  of  the  Independent.  His  philosophic  mind  saw 
how  to  use  the  Church  and  the  Constitution  as  instruments*  for  the  over¬ 
throw  of  slavery.  He  gave  of  his  wisdom  to  pastors  and  to  legislators 
and  was  far  more  deserving  of  an  honorary  testimonial  as  the  leader  of 
emancipation  than  they  who  in  fact  received  it. 

in  P^yl/ama  adopted’  measures  of  emancipation 

l11  ’  Connecticut  and  It h ode  Island  m  1784.  New  Hamnsbire  fnllnwpr? 

m  1792,  New  York  in  1799,  and  New  Jersey  in  1804.  But  the  household 

slavery  of  the  had  little  in  common  with  the  plantation 

siaveiy  ot  the  South.  The  former  treated  the  slave  as  a  person  the  lat¬ 
ter  as  property.  At  the  period  of  the  Constitution,  North  Carolina!  South 
an(*  Georgia  were  the  only  States  that  had  not  already  prohib- 
lted  the  importation  of  slaves  from  foreign  countries. 

Iteport  of  Col.  Hamilton:  Madison  Bapers,  ii.  702. 


130  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

that  their  strength  and  perpetuity  as  a  Union  would  re¬ 
quire  the  surrendry  by  each  State  of  some  portion  of  the 
sovereignty  it  so  clearly  prized,  and  this  surrendry  must 
be  acquiesced  in  by  the  people  of  each  State  in  accept¬ 
ing  the  proposed  Constitution.  Had  a  bare  majority  of 
States  in  that  convention  insisted  upon  terms  of  union 
that  must  have  excluded  one-fourth  of  the  whole,  this 
would,  indeed,  have  dealt  a  final  blow  to  the  Confederacy 
as  it  then  was,  but  have  also  defeated  the  possibility  of  a 
stable  and  united  nation.  If  South  Carolina,  North  Caro¬ 
lina,  and  Georgia  had  been  excluded  from  the  just  nascent 
Union  because  of  slavery,  it  was  highly  probable  that 
Virginia  and  Maryland  would  have  made  common  cause 
with  them,  though  these  two  States  had  already  prohib¬ 
ited  the  slave-trade,  and  many  leading  statesmen  of  Vir¬ 
ginia  favored  the  abolition  of  slavery.  In  that  event 
there  would  have  been  two  rival  confederacies,  both  weak, 
and  both  likely  to  be  distracted  with  the  strife  of  demo¬ 
cratic  and  monarchic  tendencies.  Moreover,  the  three 
most  southerly  States  had  not  yet  ceded  their  surplus 
lands  to  the  public  domain ;  and  Virginia  might  have 
reclaimed  her  territory  ceded  in  1T84,  if  the  partnership 
of  the  States  had  been  dissolved.  These  two  rival  confed¬ 
eracies  of  States,  already  exhausted  by  war,  and  utterly 
bankrupt  in  finances,  would  have  sought  to  outbid  one 
another  in  alliances  with  European  powers ;  and  can  any 
man  believe,  that,  after  twenty  years,  there  would  have 
existed  on  the  soil  of  North  America  a  union  of  free  and 
independent  States  ?  Our  fathers  saw  this  peril  to  their 
own  work  and  the  hopes  of  humanity  ;  and  with  a  wisdom 
true  to  the  higher  instinct  of  universal  freedom,  dwarfing 
an  incongruity  of  the  actual  with  the  ideal,  they  made 
sure  of  the  possible,  and  so  secured  a  continent  to  Lib¬ 
erty  and  Man.  And  this  they  did  by  making  the  Consti¬ 
tution  an  instrument  of  liberty,  and  refusing  to  tarnish  it 
with  the  name  of  slavery. 

The  convention  did  not  do  evil  that  good  might  come ; 
hardly  did  they  make  a  choice  of  evils :  their  aim  was 
simply  and  honestly  good.  Had  they  driven  off  the 
Southern  States,  so  far  from  helping  freedom  and  humani¬ 
ty  through  the  curtailment  of  slavery,  they  would  have 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


131 


provoked  the  zeal  of  a  rival  confederacy  for  the  extension 
of  slavery  as  its  peculiar  interest  and  pride.  But  they 
refused  to  adopt  slavery,  or  even  to  name  it ;  and  though 
the  Constitution,  in  three  several  phrases,  betrays  a  sub¬ 
jective  consciousness  of  this  abnormal  thing  as  existing 
in  society,  yet  these  very  phrases  were  framed  with  the 
expectation  that  slavery  would  die,  and  the  determination, 
that,  so  far  as  that  instrument  was  concerned,  liberty  alone 
should  have  vital  sustenance  and  active  care.  The  first 
of  these  oblique  phrases  occurs  in  the  third  paragraph  of 
the  second  section  of  the  first  article  of  the  Constitution: 
44  Representatives  and  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned 
among  the  several  States  which  may  be  included  within 
this  Union,  according  to  their  respective  numbers,  which 
shall  be  determined  by  adding  to  the  whole  number  of 
free  persons,  including  those  bound  to  service  for  a  term 
of  years,  and  excluding  Indians  not  taxed,  three-fifths  of 
all  other  persons.” 

Once  and  again  in  the  course  of  debate  it  was  proposed 
to  designate  these  44  other  persons  ”  as  44  blacks,”  or 
44 slaves;”  and  in  the  draught  of  the  Constitution  sub¬ 
mitted  so  late  as  the  12tli  of  September,  only  five  days 
before  its  final  adoption,  was  the  phrase,  44  those  bound  to 
servitude  for  a  term  of  years,”  which  would  mean  slaves ; 
but  this  was  altered  to  44  those  bound  to  service,'*'  which 
might  mean  apprentices,  so  averse  was  the  convention  to 
stamping  servitude  upon  the  Constitution. 

The  second  phrase  is  in  the  first  paragraph  of  the  ninth 
section  of  the  first  article :  44  The  migration  or  importa¬ 
tion  of  such  persons  as  the  several  States  now  existing 
shall  think  proper  to  admit  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the 
Congress  prior  -to  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  eight.”  .  Why  did  they  not  say,  44  The  slave-trade  shall 
not  be  prohibited  ”  ?  Gouverneur  Morris  proposed, 44  The 
importation  of  slaves  into  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina, 
and  Georgia,  shall  not  be  prohibited,”  &c. ;  but,  on  strong 
objection,  he  withdrew  his  amendment.  Mr.  Dickinson 
moved,  44  The  importation  of  slaves  into  such  of  the  States 
as  shall  permit  the  same  shall  not  be  prohibited,”  &c. ; 
but  this  was  disagreed  to  nem.  con.  The  convention 
would  not  suffer  slavery  to  intrench  itself  within  the  Con- 


132  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

stitution  by  so  much  as  admitting  its  name.  Mr.  Madison 
« thought  it  wrong  to  admit  in  the  Constitution  the  idea 
that  there  could  be  property  in  men,”  and  that  the  liberty 
to  import  slaves  for  twenty  years  would  be  “  dishonorable 

to  the  American  character.”  1 

The  third  and  last  of  these  oblique  phrases  was  one,  the 
forced  construction  of  which,  in  later  years,  was  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  that  sectional  strife  that  could  only  be  quenched 
in  war.  It  reads,  “No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in 
one  State  under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another, 
shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be 
discharged  from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  deliv¬ 
ered  up  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or 
labor  may  be  due  ”  (Art.  IV.  2,  3).  Every  word  of  this 
clause  might  stand  for  runaway  apprentices,  and  every 
verbal  obligation  be  fulfilled  by  returning  such  fugitives, 
under  the  system  of  apprenticeship  as  it  then  existed  in 
many  States.  No  doubt  runaway  slaves  were  in  the  con¬ 
templation  of  this  clause :  but  the  framers  of  the  Consti¬ 
tution  regarded  slavery  as  purely  a  local  institution,  exist¬ 
ing  only' by  force  of  the  customs  and  laws  of  particular 
States,  and  not  proper  to  be  incorporated  with  the  national 
Constitution  ;  and,  moreover,  looking  forward  to  its  speedy 
demise,  while  providing  for  the  mutual  recognition  among 
the  States  of  their  several  local  laws,  so  far  as  to  avoid 
legal  and  judicial  collisions,  they  refused  to  specify  slavery 
as  a  thing  to  be  guarded  by  the  national  code.  I  say,  re¬ 
fused  to  do  this  ;  for,  when  the  matter  was  under  discus¬ 
sion  in  the  convention,  Gen.  Pinckney  expressed  the  wish 
“  that  some  provision  should  be  included  in  favor  of  prop¬ 
erty  in  slaves ;  ”  and  Mr?  Butler  moved  to  require  “  fugi¬ 
tive  slaves  and  servants  to  be  delivered  up  like  crimi¬ 
nals.”  2  But  the  convention,  set  in  its  purpose  not  to 
affix  the  seal  of  slavery  to  an  instrument  of  liberty,  voted 
down  every  such  proposal ;  and,  instead  of  ordering  that 
fugitive  slaves  should  be  delivered  up  by  force  of  United- 
States  laws  and  officers,  simply  provided  against  a  collision 
between  State  authorities  through  the  opposition  of  local 
laws  and  usages.  Mr.  Madison  says,  that  in  the  final 
adoption  of  the  clause  as  it  now  stands,  u  on  motion  of 

1  Madison  Papers,  iii.  1G27-1629.  2  Ibid.,  iii.  1447. 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


183 


Mr.  Randolph  of  Virginia,  the  word  4  servitude  ’  was  struck 
out,  and  4  service  ’  unanimously  inserted  ;  the  former  being 
thought  to  express  the  condition  of  slaves,  and  the  latter 
the  obligation  of  free  persons.”  No,  not  even  the  existence 
of  servitude  should  have  place  in  this  charter  of  liberty. 

The  term  “person”  was  studiously  adhered  to  in  order 
to  exclude  from  the  Constitution  the  idea  of  property  in 
man.  This  comes  out  forcibly  in  the  history  of  the  Fifth 
Amendment  proposed  by  the  first  Congress  under  the  Con¬ 
stitution,  and  ratified  by  the  legislatures  of  three-fourths 
of  the  States.  This  amendment  declares  that  44  no  person 
shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  without  due 
process  of  law.”  Mr.  Sumner  brought  out  the  fact,  that, 
44  as  originally  recommended  by  North  Carolina  and  Vir¬ 
ginia,  this  clause  was  restrained  to  the  freeman.  Its  lan¬ 
guage  was,  ‘No  freeman  ought  to  be  deprived  of  his  life, 
liberty,  or  property,  but  by  the  law  of  the  land.’  ”  This 
limitation  was  rejected,  and  44  person  ”  substituted  for 
44  freeman.”  44  The  word  4  person  ’  in  the  Constitution  em¬ 
braces  every  human  being  within  its  sphere,  whether 
Caucasian,  Indian,  or  African,  from  the  President  to  the 
slave.”  1 

In  this  view,  the  Supreme  Court  long  ago  decided  that 
44  slavery  is  a  municipal  regulation ;  is  local,  and  cannot 
exist  without  authority  of  law ;  ” 2  and,  when  a  slave 
escapes  into  a  State  where  slavery  does  not  exist,  44  there 
is  no  principle  in  the  common  law,  in  the  law  of  nations 
or  of  nature,  which  authorizes  his  recapture.”3  The  pre¬ 
vailing  construction  of  the  Constitution  was,  that  the  re¬ 
turn  of  fugitives  should  be  negotiated  through  State 
courts  and  officers,  the  United  States  simply  holding  itself 
in  reserve  in  the  event  of  a  conflict  of  laws  and  of  juris¬ 
diction.  The  attempt  to  transform  this  regulative  princi- 

1  Sumner’s  Speech  on  Freedom  National,  Slavery  Sectional. 

2  Miller  v.  McQuarry,  5  McLean,  469  ;  Gilbna  v.  Gorliam,  4  McLean, 
412.  Quoted  by  Towle,  Analysis  of  the  Constitution,  207,  208. 

3  This  view  was  pronounced  also  by  the  supreme  courts  of  slave 
States.'  Thus,  in  Mississippi,  “Slavery  is  condemned  by  reason  and  the 
laws  of  nature:  it  exists,  and  can  exist,  only  through  municipal  regula¬ 
tions”  (Harry  v.  Decker,  Walker,  It.  42). 

And  again,  in  Kentucky:  “  We  view  this  as  a  right  existing  by  positive 
law  of  a  municipal  character,  without  foundation  in  the  law  of  nature  or 
the  unwritten  and  common  law”  (Rankin  v.  Lydia,  2  Marshall,  470). 
Quoted  by  Sumner,  Speech  in  Senate  26th  August,  1852. 


134  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


pie  into  an  active  obligation,  to  be  enforced  by  the  laws, 
the  officers,  and  the  people  of  the  United  States,  making 
the  Constitution  an  instrument  for  the  protection,  and 
even  the  propagation,  of  slavery,  was  a  wide  departure 
from  the  spirit  and  intent  of  the  convention  of  1787.  In 
that  body  the  strongest  protests  against  the  slave-trade 
and  slavery  were  from  statesmen  of  Virginia.  That  bold 
and  eloquent  orator,  Col.  George  Mason,  said  of  the  slave- 
trade,  “  This  infernal  traffic  originated  in  the  avarice  of 
British  merchants.”  And  of  slavery  he  said,  “  It  discour¬ 
ages  arts  and  manufactures.  The  poor  despise  labor  when 
performed  by  slaves.  They  prevent  the  immigration  of 
whites,  who  really  enrich  and  strengthen  a  country. 
They  produce  the  most  pernicious  effect  on  manners. 
Every  master  of  slaves  is  born  a  petty  tyrant.  They  bring 
the  judgment  of  Heaven  on  a  country.  As  nations  can¬ 
not  be  rewarded  or  punished  in  the  next  world,  they  must 
be  in  this.  By  an  inevitable  chain  of  causes  and  effects, 
Providence  punishes  national  sins  by  national  calamities. 
He  lamented  that  some  of  our  Eastern  brethren  had,  from 
a  lust  of  gain,  embarked  in  this  nefarious  traffic.  As  to 
the  States  being  in  possession  of  the  right  to  import 
slaves,  this  was  the  case  with  many  other  rights  now  to 
be  properly  given  up.  He  held  it  essential,  in  every  point 
of  view,  that  the  General  Government  should  have  power 
to  prevent  the  increase  of  slavery.”  1  This  was  on  the 
22d  August;  and  then,  if  ever,  the  advocates  of  slavery 
might  have  taken  alarm,  since,  on  the  18th  July  pre¬ 
ceding,  the  Congress  of  the  Confederacy  had  passed  the 
famous  ordinance  for  the  government  of  the  territory 
north-west  of  the  River  Ohio,  which  declared  (Art.  VI.), 
“  There  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude 
in  the  said  territory,  otherwise  than  in  the  punishment 
of  crimes  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  con¬ 
victed.”  With  this  pronounced  purpose  of  Congress  to 
exclude  slavery  from  the  national  domain,  and  to  provide 
against  its  establishment  in  new  States,  the  defenders  of 
slavery  might  well  have  been  sensitive  to  the  slight  put 
upon  the  system  by  the  omission  to  name  it  in  the  new 
Constitution.  But  a  “  proslavery  man,”  an  advocate  of 

1  Reported  by  Madison,  iii.  1400. 


ADOPTION  OP  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


185 


tlie  system  upon  ethical  and  political  grounds,  was  in 
those  days  rarely  to  be  found.  Ten  of  the  thirteen  States 
had  already  prohibited  the  slave-trade,  which  Great  Brit¬ 
ain  did  not  prohibit  till  twenty  years  later.  The  three 
States  whose  commercial,  domestic,  and  industrial  inter¬ 
ests  were  most  nearly  identified  with  slavery,  obtained 
from  the  convention  only  a  circuitous  pledge  that  this 
traffic  should  not  be  prohibited  by  Congress  before  the 
year  1808.  Without  that  concession,  the  Union  could  not 
have  been  formed :  but  in  March,  1794,  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  prohibited  the  slave-trade  to  foreign  coun¬ 
tries1  (though  this  traffic  was  still  lively  in  British 
merchantmen)  ;  and  on  the  second  day  of  March,  1807, 
twenty-three  days  before  the  British  Parliament  abolished 
the  slave-trade,  Congress  prohibited  the  importation  of 
slaves,  the  act  to  take  effect  on  the  first  day  of  January, 
1808,  the  very  instant  that  the  tacit,  reluctant  permission 
of  the  Constitution  should  expire.  Then,  as  to  the  rendi¬ 
tion  of  fugitives,  the  circular  of  the  British  Admiralty  in 
September,  1875, — like  the  Fugitive-slave  Law  of  Con¬ 
gress  in  1850,  —  shows  how  utterly  the  government  of  the 
hour  may  misrepresent  the  moral  sentiment  of  a  nation, 
though  justifying  its  action  by  technicalities  of  law ; 
and  this  whole  review  may  well  rebuke  the  Pharisaism 
of  any  in  England  who  would  taunt  America  with  a  sys¬ 
tem  whose  dying  struggle  their  ministry,  a  strong  party 
in  Parliament,  and  their  leading  press,  did  so  much  to 
prolong.2 

1  Sir  William  Grant,  in  liis  famous? decision  in  tlie  case  of  the  AmOUe,  in 
1807,  distinctly  concedes  to  America  this  priority  in  denouncing  the  slave- 
trade.  “  In  all  the  former  cases  of  this  kind  which  have  come  before  this 
court,  the  slave-trade  was  liable  to  considerations  very  different  from 
those  which  belong  to  it  now.  It  had  at  that  time  been  prohibited,  so  far 
as  respected  carrying  slaves  to  the  colonies  of  foreign  nations,  by  Ameri¬ 
ca  ;  but  by  our  own  laws  it  was  still  allowed.  .  .  .  The  slave-trade  has 
since  been  totally  abolished  by  this  country,  and  onr  legislature  has  pro¬ 
nounced  it  to  be  contrary  to  the  principles  of  justice  and  humanity. 
Whatever  we  might  think,  as  individuals,  before,  we  could  not,  sitting  as 
judges  in  a  British  court  of  justice,  regard  the  trade  in  that  light  while 
our  own  laws  permitted  it.”  —  1  Acton’s  Admiralty  Reports ,  p.  240. 

2  At  the  delivery  of  the  Lecture,  a  few  among  my  English  hearers  took 
umbrage  at  this  passage;  though  the  great  majority,  and  these  the  better 
versed  in  history  and  affairs,  frankly  admitted  its  truth  and  justice. 
Gladly  would  I  avoid  reminiscences  that  could  give  pain  to  any;  but,  in 
giving  an  historical  retrospect,  I  dare  not  suppress  important  facts  to  grati¬ 
fy  my  own  feelings  or  the  feelings  of  friends.  I  think  the  passage  as  it 
stands  in  the  text  states  the  facts  as  they  were  in  well-considered  words, 


136  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


At  a  time  when  slavery  was  yet  universally  recognized, 
the  framers  of  the  Constitution  saw  they  must  make  some 
concession  to  its  existence,  or  forego  the  constitution  of  a 
national  republic.  Unable  to  decree  the  abolition  of 
slavery,  but  anticipating  its  speedy  extinction,  they  did 
secure  the  exclusion  of  slavery  by  name  or  express  sanc¬ 
tion  from  the  charter  of  a  free  people.  How  their  hopes 
failed,  I  shall  show  in  the  next  chapter;  but  it  is  not 
for  us  to  doubt  their  wisdom,  or  impeach  their  integrity. 
In  making  a  new  chemical  compound,  it  may  be  important 
to  eliminate  it  from  some  deleterious  substance  :  but,  in 
experimenting  for  this,  it  is  not  worth  while  to  begin  with 
blowing  up  the  laboratory  and  its  operators ;  better  wait 
till  retorts,  walls,  and  bomb-proofs  are  strong  enough  to 
risk  the  explosion.  Had  Luther  separated  Church  from 
State,  and  taken  sides  with  the  peasants  in  their  war,  how 
different  might  have  been  the  fate  of  Germany  and  the 
Reformation!  Yes;  but  did  not  Luther  do  enough?  Did 
not  our  fathers  do  enough  ?  Or  are  we  so  ignoble  as  to 

and  nofie  too  strongly.  Our  grievance  against  Great  Britain  during  the 
war  of  1861-05  was  not  a  financial  one.  flie  payment  of  damages  caused 
by  allowing  the  Alabama  to  put  out  from  an  English  port  was  indeed  a 
question  to  be  settled  between  the  two  governments;  but,  in  common 
with  all  high-minded  Americans  abroad,  I  felt  humiliated  when  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  United  States  brought  before  the  Geneva  tribunal  the 
preposterous  demand  for  “  indirect  claims.”  This  was  absurd  enough  as  a 
bit  of  exaggerated  rhetoric  from  the  lips  of  Mr.  Sumner,  —  what  Mr.  Benton 
would  have  called  “a  stump-speech  in  the  belly  of  tlie  bill:  ”  but  from  the 
government  as  a  formal  demand,  if  seriously  meant,  it  was  childish;  if 
meant  for  effect,  it  was  a  bit  of  chicanery  grotesque  and  mortifying  to  the 
last  degree.  We  have  not  yet  recovered  in  Europe  from  this  official 
proclamation  of  our  “mercenary”  character.  No  !  money  was  not  our 
grievance  against  Great  Britain:  it  Avas  that  she  went  back  on  her  own 
traditions  of  freedom  and  amity.  She  was  allied  to  us  by  treaty;  yet, 
Avliile  our  accredited  ambassador  Avas  known  to  be  on  his  Avav,  she  made 
haste  to  gi\re  the  Rebellion  a  belligerent  status  by  the  proclamation  of 
“neutrality.”  England  had  in  many  Avays  admonished  us  of  the  evil  of 
slavery;  yet  when  known  antislavery  men  assured  her  that  the  Rebellion 
AA’as  in  the  interest  of  slavery,  and  must  prove  its  doom,  their  voices  were 
not  heard.  We  had  in  Britain  many  true  and  noble  friends,  Avliose  fidelity 
to  freedom  and  to  international  comity  deser\res  all  praise.  But  the  A’isible 
currents  of  English  feeling  set  strongly  toward  secession,  and  there  was 
no  prompt  national  uprising  of  Christian  England  in  sympathy  for  our 
cause.  Perhaps  it  A\ras  better  for  us  that  Ave  Avent  through  the  struggle 
Avithout  that  sympathy;  but  it  Avas  not  so  Avellfor  England  in  the  estimate 
of  thoughtful  and  Christian  Americans.  Her  moral  failure  in  this  great 
emergency  of  Freedom  A^as  to  us  a  Avonder  and  a  grief.  Thus  much  the 
simple  truth  demands  of  one  whose  Avliole  life  attests  that  he  has  never 
spoken  ill  of  England.  The  record  must  speak  for  itself.  A  just  recogni¬ 
tion  of  past  mistakes  may  be  the  surest  preparation  for  good  understand¬ 
ing  and  cordial  comity  in  the  future. 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION.  137 

complain  that  they  did  not  leave  us  a  perfect  society,  in 
which  we  might  sit  at  our  ease,  with  nothing  to  test  our 
patriotism,  or  discipline  our  manhood  ?  Over  the  grave  of 
slavery,  —  a  grave  so  vast  that  it  swallowed  up  five  hun¬ 
dred  thousand  sons  of  America  who  should  have  been 
brothers,  —  a  grave  in  which,  O  brethren  of  the  South  ! 
my  body  and  blood  are  buried  with  yours,  —  let  us  be  just 
to  the  memory  of  the  fathers,  and  strike  hands  in  perpet¬ 
ual  fealty  to  their  Constitution  of  freedom ! 

The  other  point  in  which  the  wisdom  of  the  convention 
of  1787  shone  supreme  in  that  which  it  rejected  was  its 
steadfast  refusal  to  admit  into  the  new  Constitution  the 
principle  of  a  confederation  of  States.  There  was  already 
such  a  confederation,  which  members  of  this  convention 
had  assisted  to  frame.  The  Congress  of  that  confederation 
was  then  in  session :  the  members  of  the  convention  sat 
as  the  delegates  of  States,  and  voted  by  States,  the  major¬ 
ity  of  each  delegation  casting  the  single  vote  of  their 
State ;  and  yet  this  council  of  States,  in  providing  a  Con¬ 
stitution  for  the  future,  repudiated  the  very  basis  upon 
which  itself  was  formed.  One  has  but  to  read,  side  by  side, 
the  preambles  to  the  Confederation  and  the  Constitution, 
to  mark  this  significant  change.  The  first  opens  as  fol¬ 
lows  :  u  Articles  of  Confederation  and  Perpetual  Union 
between  the  States  of  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts 
Bay,  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations,  Connec¬ 
ticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware, 
Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and 
Georgia.”  Art.  III.  —  “  The  said  States  hereby  severally 
enter  into  a  firm  league  of  friendship  with  each  other,  for 
their  common  defence,  the  security  of  their  liberties,  and 
their  mutual- and  general  welfare,  binding  themselves  to 
assist  each  other  against  all  force  offered  to  or  attacks 
made  upon  them,  or  any  of  them,  on  account  of  religion, 
sovereignty,  trade,  or  any  other  pretence  whatever.”  Here 
is  no  constitution,  no  body  knit  together  as  one  being, 
its  every  part  held  and  swayed  by  an  inward  law  of  life 
and  growth,  but  a  mere  pact,  —  a  pasteboard  body  without 
brain  or  heart,  the  limbs  articulated  with  strings,  which, 
though  capable  of  pulling  all  together,  have  a  propensity 
to  individual  jerks,  at  all  times  hang  loosely,  and  may  at 


138  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

any  moment  snap  asunder.  It  can  be  safely  predicated  of 
such  a  body,  that  it  won’t  work  just  when  you  most  want 
it  to.  This  confederate  body,  pieced  together  by  “Arti¬ 
cles,”  never  had  an  executive  head,  but  in  the  recess  of 
Congress  was  represented  by  “  a  committee  of  the  States.” 

Turn  from  this  to  the  grand  announcement  that  heralds 
the  government  under  which  the  United  States  have  lived 
since  the  4tli  of  March,  1789:  “We,  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect  union, 
establish  justice,  insure  domestic  tranquillity,  provide  for 
the  common  defence,  promote  the  general  welfare,  and 
secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  pos¬ 
terity,  do  ordain  and  establish  this  Constitution  for  the 
United  States  of  America.”  Ah !  we  feel  here  the  heart 
of  the  nation,  beating  with  the  consciousness  of  unity  and 
of  imperishable  life ;  beating  with  the  strong  instinct  of 
right,  and  the  calm  spirit  of  peace ;  beating  with  even 
pulse  for  the  good  of  all ;  beating  with  high  hope  for  us 
and  our  children,  for  liberty  and  man. 

This  change  from  a  treaty  of  States  to  a  national  Con¬ 
stitution  was  made  with  the  utmost  deliberation,  and  was 
contested  at  every  step  by  the  adherents  of  the  old  notion 
of  a  confederacy.  After  some  preliminary  skirmishing 
in  the  committee  of  the  whole,  this  fundamental  question 
between  the  federal  plan  and  the  national  plan  was  the 
subject  of  debate  for  five  consecutive  days,  —  a  debate  in 
which  most  of  the  leading  minds  of  the  convention  took 
part,  and  Randolph,  Hamilton,  and  Madison  made  those 
great  and  now  historic  speeches  that  settled  the  govern¬ 
ment  upon  the  basis  of  national  unity.  The  debate  ranged 
about  two  conflicting  propositions.  The  first,  moved  by  Mr. 
Patterson  in  the  interest  of  the  smaller  States,  “ Resolved , 
That  the  Articles  of  Confederation  ought  to  be  so  revised, 
corrected,  and  enlarged,  as  to  render  the  Federal  Constitu 
tion  adequate  to  the  exigencies  of  government  and  the 
preservation  of  the  Union :  ”  the  second,  moved  by  Mr. 
Randolph,  and  recommended  by  the  committee  of  the 
whole,  “  Resolved,  That  a  national  government  ought  to 
be  established,  consisting  of  a  supreme  legislative,  execu¬ 
tive,  and  judiciary.”  There  was  no  attempt  to  blink  the 
issue  raised  by  these  rival  propositions.  It  was  seen  from 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


189 


the  first  that  there  could  be  no  compromise  between  the 
two  plans.  Mr.  Lansing  said,  “  That  of  Mr.  Patterson 
sustains  the  sovereignty  of  the  respective  States ;  that  of 
Mr.  Randolph  destroys  it.”  And  Mr.  Randolph  himself 
said,  “  The  true  question  is,  whether  we  shall  adhere  to 
the  federal  plan,  or  introduce  the  national  plan.  Each 
plan  was  searched  and  sifted  by  an  exhaustive  debate,  at 
the  close  of  which  the  convention  resolved  44  that  the 
government  of  the  United  States  ought  to  consist  of  a 
supreme  legislative,  executive,  and  judiciary,  1  and  so 
gave  the  coup  de  grace  to  the  expiring  confederacy.  That 
the  convention  so  interpreted  its  own  act  is  clear  from 
the  letter  of  Washington,  its  president,  to  the  president 
of  Congress,  in  submitting  the  Constitution  to  that  body : 
“  It  is  obviously  impracticable,  in  the  federal  government 
of  these  States,  to  secure  all  rights  of  independent  sov¬ 
ereignty  to  each,  and  yet  provide  for  the  inteiest  and 
safety  of  all.  Individuals  entering  into  society  must  give 
up  a  share  of  liberty  to  preserve  the  rest.  .  .  .  In  all 
our  deliberations  on  this  subject,  we  kept  steadily  in  our 
view  that  which  appears  to  ust  the  greatest  interest  of 
every  true  American,  —  the  consolidation  of  our  Union, 
in  which  is  involved  our  prosperity,  felicity,  safety,  perhaps 
our  national  existence.”  On  the  17th  September,  1787, 
the  convention  finished  its  work :  on  the  28th  September, 
Congress  transmitted  the  new  Constitution  to  the  legisla¬ 
tures  of  the  several  States,  “  in  order  to  be  submitted  to 
a  convention  of  delegates  chosen  in  each  State  by  the 
people  thereof.”  And  now  this  new  plan  of  government, 
as  it  was  universally  regarded,  had  to  undergo  the  ordeal 
of  these  popular  tribunals.  The  battle  that  had  been 
fought  out*  in  the  Federal  convention  was  renewed  in 
each  State  convention,  and  raged  with  peculiar  violence 
in  the  State  of  New  York,  where  Hamilton,  Madison,  and 
Jay  did  such  sturdy  service  to  the  cause  of  national  gov¬ 
ernment  by  their  essays  under  the  title  of  44  dhe  Fedeial- 
ist,”  which  soon  took  rank  with  the  higher  statesmanship 
of’ the  day.  At  length,  by  the  close  of  July,  1788,  ten 
months  after  its  adoption  in  convention,  the  new  Consti¬ 
tution  was  ratified  by  eleven  States,  —  Delaware,  Pennsyl- 

i  Madison  Papers,  ii.  858-909. 


140  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

vania,  New  Jersey,  Georgia,  Connecticut,  Massachusetts, 
Maryland,  South  Carolina,  New  Hampshire,  Virginia,  New 
York.  North  Carolina  held  aloof  till  Nov.  21,  1789 ;  and 
on  May  20,  1790,  spunky  little  Ehody  entered  into  the 
family,  not  seeing  how  she  could  longer  maintain  her  sov¬ 
ereignty  alone.  Thus  the  league  resting  upon  sovereign 
States  was  repudiated  for  the  Union  emerging  out  of  the 
sovereignty  of  the  people.  The  issue  raised  by  war  in 
1801  was  settled  by  wisdom  more  than  seventy  years 
before  ;  and  as  we  think  upon  the  dignity,  the  consist¬ 
ency,  the.  vigor,  and  the  glory  of  the  nation  as  manifested 
through  its  Constitution,  let  us  not  forget  how  much  we 
owe  to  the  prudence,  the  patience,  the  patriotism,  of  the 
convention  of  1787,  and,  above  all,  of  Alexander  Hamil¬ 
ton  of  New  York,  and  James  Madison  and  Edmund  Ran¬ 
dolph  of  Virginia.1 

Of  the  positive  virtues  of  the  Constitution  it  is  less 
necessary  that  I  should  speak  in  detail ;  yet  I  must  point 
out  how  each  of  its  leading  provisions  for  the  actual  gov¬ 
ernment  is,  at  the  same  time,  a  protection  against  a  peril 
that  might  have  destroyed  the  republic.  To  have  ad¬ 
mitted  in  the  Constitution  a  right  of  secession  would 
have  brought  on  board  a  case  of  dynamite  with  a  clock¬ 
work  adjusted  to  explode  it,  and  blow  up  the  ship  of  state 
within  a  given  number  of  days.  But  so  vigilant  were  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution  against  inflammable  and  explo¬ 
sive  material,  that  nothing  could  be  smuggled  on  board 
under  an  evasive  manifest;  but  every  article  was  subjected 
to  a  thorough  search.2  Popular  government  was  to  be 
maintained,  but  the  risks  of  popular  excitement  and 
vacillation,  and  of  mobocracy,  to  be  guarded  against :  so 
the  people  are  left  in  possession  of  local  government 

1  Though  at  the  last  Mr.  Randolph  declined  to  sign  the  Constitution  as 
a  whole,  it  was  he  that  first  introduced  and  advocated  in  the  convention 
the  plan  of  a  national  government. 

2  In  Switzerland  there  exists  among  the  cantons  a  federal  pact,  without 
the  national  unity  that  characterizes  the  government  of  the  United  States. 
In  184()  a  separate  league  was  formed  between  the  Catholic  cantons, 
known  as  the  Sonderbund ,  and  based  upon  the  doctrine  that  the  federal 
pact  was  ‘‘a  mere  alliance  of  independent  and  sovereign  states,  each  of 
them  at  liberty  to  put  tlieir  own  construction  upon  it,  and  break  it  when¬ 
ever  they  chose.”  This  pretence  was  resisted  with  the  whole  strength  of 
the  Diet;  and  Mr.  Crote.  in  his  Letters  on  the  Politics  of  Switzerland,  has 
shown  that  it  would  lead  to  the  annihilation  of  all  government. 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


141 


under  tlie  laws  of  the  several  States,  and  enabled  to  par¬ 
ticipate  directly  in  the  general  government  by  choosing 
their  representatives  in  Congress,  and  also  the  electors  of 
a  President,  in  such  way  as  their  State  legislatures  may 
direct.  They  can  change  their  representatives  every  two 
years';  but  a  gust  of  popular  passion  that  might  sweep 
away  the  whole  government  with  one  blast,  and  toss  its 
policy  like  a  shuttlecock,  is  checked  by  a  presidential 
term  of  four  years,  and  by  the  Senate  as  a  constant  factor 
in  the  government,  whose  composition  can  be^  changed 
only  gradually  during  a  period  of  six  years.  Ihe  integ¬ 
rity  of  the  State  organizations  was  to  be  preserved,  and 
their  dignity  respected :  yet  provision  must  be  made 
against  aristocratic  cabals  of  State  powers  against  the 
liberties  of  the  people,  and  rebellious  cabals  against  the 
national  authority ;  and  so  each  State  —  without  regard  to 
age,  area,  or  population  —  has  two  senators  chosen  by  its 
legislature :  but  in  the  Senate,  instead  of  voting  as  in  the 
Confederate  Congress  by  States,  each  senator  may  at  any 
time  vote  against  his  colleague,  and  ally,  himself  with 
another  party  and  policy,  or  act  with  entire  independence  ; 
so  that  State  dictation  or  cabal  is  hardly  possible,  even  in 
the  Senate  appointed  by  the  States.  Nor  can  the  Senate 
erect  itself  into  an  aristocracy,  since  there  is  the  House 
of  Representatives,  fresh  every  two  years  from  the  people, 
to  hold  in  check  any  aristocratic  usurpation,  especially  by 
a  vital  grip  upon  the  purse-strings. 

By  this  happy  balancing  of  powers,  the  State  —  which 
should  properly  be  an  outward  formal  expression  of  so¬ 
ciety  itself — is  made  to  rest,  not  upon  any  class  of  pei- 
sons  or  of  interests,  but  upon  that  combination  of  classes 
and  interests  that  represents  human  nature  in  its  totality. 
The  dual  system  adjusts  the  two  elements  in  society  that 
answer  to  the  quantitative  and  the  qualitative  in  nature.1 
These  elements  are  the  democratic  and  the  aristocratic, 
here  combined  in  the  representative  and  constitutional 


1  “In  alien  Volkern  von  holierer  Art  ist  ein  innerer  Gegensatz  zwischen 
dera  Demos  und  der  AristoJcratie  vorhanden,  welcher  rnit  dem  Gegensatze  der 
Quantitut  und  Qualitut  in  der  Natur  zusammenhangt  ”  (Bluntschli  :  Allge- 
ineinea  Statsreeht,  t>.  ii.  c.  iv.).  Bluntschli  computes,  that,  m  Europe,  the 
system  of  two  Chambers  is  adopted  by  a  hundred  and  seventy-three  mil¬ 
lions;  that  of  one  Chamber,  by  only  nine  millions. 


142  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

republic.  While  demagogism,  mobocracy,  and  aristocracy 
are  thus  guarded  against,  there  is  also  provision  against 
absolutism.  The  nation  must  have  an  executive  head ; 
but  this  must  not  admit  of  the  u  one-man  power.”  The 
electors  of  the  President  are  chosen  either  directly  by  the 
people,  or  mediately  by  the  legislatures  of  the  States. 
The  electors  in  each  State  vote  apart,  and  send  a  list  of 
their  ballots,  certified  and  sealed,  to  the  president  of  the 
Senate  at  W ashington ;  so  that  popular  sovereignty  and 
State  organization  are  both  respected  in  the  provisions  for 
electing  the  head  of  the  nation,  though  in  practice  one  or 
both  may  be  reduced  to  a  fiction.  The  President  can 
make  no  laws,  and  assume  no  powers ;  and  for  attempt 
at  usurpation,  or  other  malfeasance  in  office,  he  may  be 
impeached  by  the  Plouse,  and  tried  by  the  Senate.  But 
though  he  is  thus  hedged  in  from  all  personal  aggrandize¬ 
ment  and  dictatorial  power,  yet,  in  his  official  character,  he 
can,  upon  occasion,  wield  an  authorit}^  more  than  imperial ; 
for  he  is  the  executive  of  the  collective  will  and  might  of 
the  people,  and  u  he  shall  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faith¬ 
fully  executed.” 

The  three  great  departments  of  government — legislative, 
executive,  and  judicial  —  are  by  this  Constitution  clearly 
distinguished,  and  set  in  stable  equipoise.  Though  the 
President  cannot  make  laws,  nor  even  originate  them,  his 
signature  is  required  to  give  validity  to  an  act  of  Congress  ; 
and  he  can  withhold  this,  or  can  veto  any  act  that  he  does 
not  approve.  But,  in  either  case,  the  act  may  still  become 
a  law :  in  the  first,  by  the  lapse  of  ten  days  (if  Congress  is 
still  in  session)  ;  in  the  second,  by  the  concurrence  of  two- 
thirds  of  both  houses  in  repassing  it.  Hence,  if  Congress 
is  rash,  the  President  can  check  it ;  if  the  President  is 
stubborn,  Congress  can  override  him:  and  it  may  some¬ 
times  happen  that  the  House,  the  Senate,  and  the  Presi¬ 
dent  are  each  a  check  upon  the  other ;  as,  for  instance,  in 
this  year  1876,  the  House  is  Democratic,  the  Senate  Re¬ 
publican,  while  the  President  seems  to  have  resolved  “  to 
fight  it  out  on  his  own  line.”  Again  :  should  both  Presi¬ 
dent  and  Congress  be  rash  or  partisan,  there  remains  the 
judiciary,  whose  officers  hold  during  good  behavior,  and 
sit  aloof  from  the  political  excitements  of  the  hour ;  and 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


148 


the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  may  set  aside 
acts  of  Congress  approved  by  the  President,  as  unconsti¬ 
tutional  and  invalid.  That  court  can  maintain  the  right 
of  the  humblest  citizen  against  a  wrong  committed  by  the 
whole  power  of  the  United  States,  legislative  and  execu¬ 
tive.  But,  when  a  law  is  constitutional,  there  can  be  no 
pretence  of  authority  in  any  quarter  against  it,  nor  of  right 
in  any  body  to  resist  it ;  for  “  this  Constitution,  and  the 
laws  of  the  United  States  which  shall  be  made  in  pursu¬ 
ance  thereof,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land ;  and 
the  judges  in  every  State  shall  be  bound  thereby,  any 
thing  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding :  ”  for  the  United  States  are  a 
nation  ;  and  the  people,  not  the  states,  have  ordained  and 
established  the  Constitution.  Such  was  the  government 
which  went  into  practical  operation  on  the  fourth  day  of 
March,  1789.1 


1  The  successful  framing  of  such  a  government  was  due,  in  no  small 
measure,  to  the  political  spirit  in  which  the  people  had  been  trained.  Self- 
government,  unity  or  co-operation,  representative  authority,  and  reverence 
for  law,  were  principles  or  habits  to  which  the  colonists,  and  especially 
those  of  New  England,  had  been  accustomed.  Their  political  institutions 
were  based  upon  these  principles;  their  political  spirit  was  governed  by 
them.  The  contrast  in  these  particulars  between  the  English  and  the 
French  settlements  in  North  America  is  thus  pithily  stated  by  Mr.  Park- 
man  in  his  New  France:  — 

“  The  New-England  colonists  were  far  less  fugitives  from  oppression  than  volun¬ 
tary  exiles  seeking  the  realization  of  an  idea.  They  were  neither  peasants  nor  sol¬ 
diers,  but  a  substantial  Puritan  yeomanry,  led  by  Puritan  gentlemen  and  divines  in 
thorough  sympathy  with  them.  They  were  neither  sent  out  by  the  king,  governed 
by  him,  nor  helped  by  him.  They  grew  up  in  utter  neglect ;  and  continued  neglect 
was  the  only  boon  they  asked.  Till  their  increasing  strength  roused  the  jealousy  of 
the  crown,  they  were  virtually  independent;  a  republic,  but  by  no  means  a  democracy. 
They  chose  their  own  governor  and  all  their  rulers  from  among  themselves,  made 
their  own  government  and  paid  for  it,  supported  their  own  clergy,  defended  them¬ 
selves,  and  educated  themselves.  Under  the  hard  and  repellent  surface  of  New- 
England  society  lay  the  true  foundations  of  a  stable  freedom,  —  conscience,  reflection, 
faith,  patience,  and  public  spirit.  The  cement  of  common  interests,  hopes,  and  duties, 
compacted  the  whole  people  like  a  rock  of  conglomerate;  while  the  people  of  New 
France  remained  in  a  state  of  political  segregation,  like  a  basket  of  pebbles  held 
together  by  the  enclosure  that  surrounds  them.” 

This  was  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  French  colonies  had  no  “  people,” 
in  the  political  sense  of  that  term.  And  indeed,  to  this  day,  France  has 
hardly  recovered  from  the  long  historical  dependence  of  the  people  as  sub¬ 
jects  "upon  the  State  as  sovereign.  M.  Simon,  in  his  eulogy  of  Eimusat, 
said,  — 

“We  are  a  people  who  only  know  how  to  display  excessive  resignation,  or  to  rush 
into  revolutions.  De  Rdmusat  jocosely  said,  ‘  There  are  a  crowd  of  people  in  Franco 
who  have  only  two  tastes,  —  receiving  commands,  and  firing  muskets.  When  tired  of 
one  exercise,  they  pass  to  the  other.’  Our  history  only  too  much  confirms  him.  Few 
peoples  have  passed  so  often  as  we  from  servitude  to  liberty,  and  from  liberty  to  servi- 


144  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

In  all  the  stages  of  the  organization  of  the  American  peo¬ 
ple  as  a  nation,  —  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  the  Declara¬ 
tion  ■  of  Independence,1  the  Confederacy,  and  finally,  the 
Constitution,  —  it  is  a  pregnant  fact,  that  no  measure  nor 
movement  was  started  in  the  interest  of  any  person,  sys¬ 
tem,  or  party ;  hut  every  step  was  taken  for  principle  and 
for  the  common  good  of  the  country.  Indeed,  there  was  a 
remarkable  jealousy  of  personal  influence  and  power.  The 
war  began  without  a  commander-in-chief ;  and,  at  its  close, 
the  general,  who  had  shared  alike  its  trials  and  its  tri¬ 
umphs,  retired  to  private  life.  He  desired  no  office,  and 
there  was  no  office  for  him  to  fill,  since  the  government 
of  the  Confederacy,  which  came  into  existence  during 
the  war,  avoided  any  provision  for  an  executive  head. 
When  the  deficiency  of  that  government  became  mani¬ 
fest,  there  was  no  attempt  in  any  quarter  to  put  forth  a 
new  organization  under  a  specific  leader,  nor  to  use  the 
name  of  any  leader  as  an  argument  for  the  organization. 
The  movement  for  a  revision  of  the  government  arose 
spontaneously  in  many  quarters,  with  no  concerted  plan. 
The  notion  of  a  national  government,  with  one  supreme 


tilde;  and,  to  make  matters  worse,  when  we  establish  liberty,  we  leave  in  our  midst, 
through  want  of  time  and  foresight,  all  the  instruments  of  depotism.” 

Lest  this  should  pass  for  the  brilliant  antithesis  that  French  oratory- 
delights  in,  I  subjoin  the  sober,  philosophical  statement  of  Laboulaye :  — 

“  The  French  system  reposes  upon  the  Roman  idea  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  State. 
The  government  is  not  alone  the  arm  of  the  nation :  it  is  the  soul  of  it.  No  doubt  the 
State  seeks  to  inform  itself:  it  surrounds  itself  with  chambers,  with  advisers,  with 
men  versed  in  affairs ;  but  politically  it  is  the  State  alone  that  wills  and  does;  Repub¬ 
lic  or  monarchy,  France  is  always  an  army  that  lives  by  the  thought. of  its  chiefs. 
This  fashion  of  conceiving  the  role  of  government  is  not  new :  it  was  that  of  Richelieu 
and  of  Louis  XIV. ;  since  1789,  it  has  been  that  of  all  parties.” 

This  was  said  in  1859  in  an  essay  on  Alexis  de  Tocqueville;  and  it  is  yet 
too  soon  to  change  materially  the  statement  as  a  contrast  of  the  French 
with  the  American  system.  In  his  essay  on  “  L’Ltat  et  ses  Limites,”* 
Laboulaye  struck  the  philosophy  of  this  contrast:  — 

“  It  is  a  fine  thing  to  exhibit  to  the  world  a  country  rich  and  industrious,  an  heroic 
army,  a  powerful  navy,  embellished  cities,  splendid  monuments :  but  there  is  some¬ 
thing  more  admirable  and  more  grand  than  all  these  wonders;  that  is,  the  force  whieh 
produces  them.  This  foroe,  which  cannot  be  too  much  economized  (therein  lies  the 
whole  secret  of  politics),  —  this  force,  which  too  many  governments  slight  and  neglect, 
—  is  the  individual ;  and  if  there  is  one  truth  that  science  demonstrates,  and  that  his¬ 
tory  cries  out  to  us,  it  is,  that  in  religion,  in  morals,  in  politics,  in  industry,  in  the 
sciences,  in  letters,  in  the  arts,  the  individual  is  nothing  but  through  liberty.” 

*  R.  102. 

i  Congress  met  in  New  York  on  that  day;  but,  for  lack  of  a  quorum, 
the  votes  for  President  were  not  counted  until  April  G;  and,  on  tlie  30th 
of  April,  Washington  took  the  oath  of  office  as  President. 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION". 


145 


head,  came  in  gradually,  and,  after  the  most  thorough 
canvassing  by  conventions,  was  accepted  as  necessary  to 
the  safety  and  welfare  of  the  nation,  and  not  at  all 
through  popular  enthusiasm  for  any  man  as  the  predes¬ 
tined  leader.  Yet  the  man  was  there,  the  typical  man,  * 
the  embodiment  of  the  national  idea,  the  predestined 
leader  of  the  people,  first  to  independence,  and  next  to 
organized  and  perpetual  liberty ;  and  so,  when  on  the 
7th  of  January,  1789,  the  several  States  chose  their  elect¬ 
ors  for  the  first  President,  but  one  name  was  in  their  minds 
and  hearts;  and  when  on  the  4tlr  of  February,  in  each 
State  apart,  those  electors  met,  but  one  name  was  cast  into 
every  urn ;  and  when  again,  on  the  6th  of  April,  in  pres¬ 
ence  of  both  houses  of  Congress,  those  sealed  ballots  were 
all  opened  and  declared,  there  was  but  one  name  to  be  pro¬ 
nounced,  —  George  Washington,  unanimously  elected 
first  President  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

The  period  from  1780  to  1815,  so  fruitful  of  great 
events  in  the  political  condition  of  the  world,  makes  an 
epoch  in  the  history  of  modern  civilization.  Within  that 
period  Prussia  rose  to  the  rank  of  a  first-class  military 
power,  and  laid  the  foundation  of  that  inward  strength 
and  that  outward  respect  which  make  her  to-day  a  leader 
in  the  affairs  of  Germany  and  of  Europe.  The  American 
Revolution  established  a  new  nation  and  a  new  order  of 
political  society  upon  the  continent  where  England, 
France,  and  Spain  had  struggled  for  supremacy.  The 
French  Revolution,  upheaving  and  overturning  every 
institution  of  France  itself,  poured  its  fiery  tide  over 
the  Alps  and  the  Rhine.  The  French  Empire  made  and 
unmade  kings  and  peoples,  and  swept  Europe  with  its 
armies  from  ‘Portugal  to  Russia.  The  fall  of  that  em¬ 
pire  brought  in  the  reconstruction  of  Europe  with  the 
balance  of  powers.  In  this  world-making  era,  marking 
its  beginning,  its  middle,  and  its  end,  stand  three  figures, 
each  inapproachable  by  others  of  his  time,  and  imper¬ 
ishable  in  personal  grandeur  and  historic  moment.  His¬ 
tory  has  no  other  example  of  three  men,  their  lives 
overlapping  each  other,  all  severally  so  great  in  war,  in 
statesmanship,  and  in  executive  administration,  at  event¬ 
ful  crises  of  their  respective  nations,  which  they  shaped 


146  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


and  guided  by  their  own  powers.  In  their  relations  to 
the  great  problems  of  political  society  and  of  human 
welfare,  it  may  be  said  of  the  first,  that  he  was  the  only 
man  of  his  country  in  his  time  ;  of  the  second,  it  must 
be  said  he  was  the  best  man  of  his  country  in  his  time  and 
for  all  time  ;  of  the  third,  that  he  was  the  foremost  man 
of  his  country  in  his  time,  but,  in  seeking  to  make  himself 
her  only  man,  fell  sadly  short  of  the  wisest  and  the  best. 
For  him,  at  least,  the  verdict  of  history  is  not  yet  settled, 
even  in  his  own  nation.  The  generation  dazzled  with 
glory  was  too  soon  followed  by  a  generation  darkened 
with  detraction.  Lights  and  shadows  still  flit  across  the 
Arc  de  Triomphe.  There  was  enough  of  glory  for  France 
in  what  he  had  done  to  make  it  an  object  to  piece 
together  the  broken  Colonne  Vendome,  but  nothing  of 
personal  veneration  or  enthusiasm  in  placing  him  again  at 
its  head.  But  the  people  of  the  United  States  have  never 
passed  but  one  verdict  upon  their  hero  ;  and  to  that  verdict 
History  has  put  her  seal  with  the  approval  of  all  good  and 
noble  men.  His  presence  is  yet  so  real  and  so  loved,  that 
Americans  seem  to  shrink  from  transforming  into  stone 
and  bronze  the  Father  who  still  lives  in  the  hearts  of  his 
countrymen.  The  fame  of  Washington  is  of  a  quality  so 
distinct  and  incontestable,  there  is  no  need  to  depreciate 
the  greatness  of  others  with  a  view  to  exaggerate  his : 
rather,  the  more  we  exalt  others  for  the  separate  qualities 
in  which  they  were  brilliant  or  eminent,  the  more  does  he 
stand  apart  from  and  above  them  all  in  that  combination 
of  excellences  that  is  peculiarly  his  own ;  even  as,  in 
approaching  Mount  Washington  or  Mont  Blanc,  the 
heights  that  awed  you  from  below  you  must  mount  over 
on  your  way  toward  him,  and  find  these  but  parts  of  the 
vast  foundation  on  which  he  towers,  or  gateways  to  his 
temple.  The  versatile  genius  of  Frederic  the  Great,  his 
sagacity,  brilliancy,  epigrammatic  wit,  his  soldierly  dash, 
fertility,  inventiveness,  his  determined  selfhood  as  general, 
sovereign,  author,  man,  are  qualities  we  can  hardly  ascribe 
to  Washington,  certainly  in  no  comparable  degree;  but 
neither  had  Washington  the  vanity  of  Frederic,  his  self- 
assertion,  his  arbitrary  will,  his  fitful  unscrupulousness. 
He  could  never  have  written,  for  lie  could  never  have 


AD  OPTION-  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


147 


felt,  what  Frederic  lias  recorded  of  liis  motives  for  invading 
Silesia:  “Ambition,  interest,  and  the  desire  of  making 
people  talk  about  me,  carried  the  day;  and  I  decided  for 
war.”  1  That  is  frank,  but  hardly  fine. 

The  world-wide  grasp  of  Napoleon,  his  power  of  combi¬ 
nation  and  concentration  alike  in  battles  and  in  laws,  his 
quick  origination  and  bold  execution,  his  magnificent  and 
terrible  audacity,  are  qualities  of  heroism  that  we  cannot 
ascribe  to  Washington;  but  neither  had  Washington  the 
intense  ambition,  the  inordinate  selfishness,  the  reckless, 
despotic  egotism,  of  Napoleon.  In  seeking  his  own  fame, 
Frederic  never  lost  sight  of  the  aggrandizement  of  Prus¬ 
sia  ;  and  his  personality  was  a  magnified  and  intensified 
patriotism,  which  shone  undimmed  to  the  moment  of  his 
death.  Flis  country  owes  him  lasting  gratitude  and  honor.2 
Napoleon  was  never  lost  to  the  glory  of  France  and  of  la 
grande  armee  ;  but  he  would  make  that  glory  tributary  to 
his  own,  and  feed  the  people  with  flattery  that  they  might 
swell  his  fame.  Frederic  was  the  man  for  his  kingdom ; 
France  was  a  nation  for  Napoleon;  Washington  was  the 
man  of  his  country  and  for  his  country,  who  freed  and  led 
his  nation  for  liberty  and  mankind.  The  passion  that  ruled 
the  soul  of  Washington  showed  scarce  a  spark  in  Frederic 
or  Napoleon, —  devotion  to  liberty  and  to  man,  without 
one  thought  of  self.3  It  is  with  an  admiration  bordering 
upon  awe,  and  a  sense  of  humiliation  for  all  pettinesses  of 
our  own,  that  we  read  the  reply  of  Washington  to  the 
overture  of  his  finalty  victorious  army  to  erect  a  military 
government  with  himself  at  its  head  :  “  Be  assured,  sir,  no 
occurrence  in  the  course  of  the  war  has  given  me  more 
painful  sensations  than  your  information  of  there  being 
such  ideas  existing  in  the  army  as  you  have  expressed, 
and  I  must  view  with  abhorrence,  and  reprehend  with 
severity.  I  am  much  at  a  loss  to  conceive  what  part  of 
my  conduct  could  have  given  encouragement  to  an  ad¬ 
dress  which  to  me  seems  big  with  the  greatest  mischiefs 
that  can  befall  my  country.  If  I  am  not  deceived  in  the 
knowledge  of  myself,  you  could  not  have  found  a  person 

1  Carlyle  attempts  to  tone  tliis  down;  but  it  must  stand  as  a  self- revela¬ 
tion  of  character. 

2  See  note  at  the  close  of  the  Lecture.  3  ibid. 


148  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


to  whom  your  schemes  are  more  disagreeable.  .  .  .  Let 
me  conjure  you,  if  you  have  any  regard  for  your  country, 
concern  for  yourself  or  posterity,  or  respect  for  me,  to  ban¬ 
ish  these  thoughts  from  your  mind,  and  never  communi¬ 
cate,  as  from  yourself  or  any  one  else,  a  sentiment  of  the 
like  nature.”  1 

No  sooner  was  peace  concluded  than  this  immaculate 
general,  who  for  eight  years  had  served  his  country  with¬ 
out  ambition  and  without  pay,  appeared  before  Congress 
to  return  the  commission  he  had  received  at  their  hands. 
“  The  great  events  on  which  my  resignation  depended 
having  at  length  taken  place,  I  now  have  the  honor  of 
offering  my  sincere  congratulations  to  Congress,  and  of  pre¬ 
senting  myself  before  them  to  surrender  into  their  hands 
the  trust  committed  to  me,  and  to  claim  the  indulgence 
of  retiring  from  the  service  of  my  country.  ...  I  consider 
it  an  indispensable  duty  to  close  this  last  solemn  act  of  my 
official  life  by  commending  the  interests  of  our  dearest 
country  to  the  protection  of  Almighty  God,  and  those 
who  have  the  superintendence  of  them  to  his  holy  keep¬ 
ing.  .  .  .  Having  now  finished  the  work  assigned  me,  I 
retire  from  the  great  theatre  of  action ;  and  bidding  an 
affectionate  farewell  to  this  august  body,  under  whose 
orders  I  have  long  acted,  I  here  offer  my  commission,  and 
take  my  leave  of  all  the  employments  of  public  life.” 

A  few  days  after,  he  wrote  to  a  friend,  “  I  hope  to  spend 
the  remainder  of  my  days  in  cultivating  the  affections  of 
good  men,  and  in  the  practice  of  the  domestic  virtues.” 

Frederic  the  Great  died ;  and,  twenty  j^ears  after,  the 
Prussia  that  he  had  created  lay  dismantled,  dismembered, 
disgraced,  at  the  dictation  of  Napoleon.  Napoleon  abdi¬ 
cated  ;  and  France  has  wandered  between  revolution  and 
despotism,  through  all  forms  of  government,  seeking  rest, 
and  finding  none.  Washington  twice  voluntarily  retired 
from  the  highest  posts  of  influence  and  power,  —  the  head 
of  the  army,  the  head  of  the  state  ;  but  the  freedom  he 
had  won  by  the  sword,  the  institutions  he  had  organized 
as  president  of  the  Federal  Convention,  the  government 
he  had  administered  as  President  of  the  Union,  remained 
unchanged,  and  have  grown  in  strength  and  majesty 
through  all  the  growing  years. 

1  Irving’s  Life  of  Washington,  iv. 


ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION.  449 

This  significant  contrast  is,  no  doubt,  to  be  explained 
largely  by  the  characters  and  conditions  of  the  peoples 
of  Prussia,  France,  and  the  United  States  ;  yet  the  char¬ 
acters  of  the  leaders  had  also  no  mean  influence  upon  the 
consequence  to  their  peoples  of  their  own  departure  from 
the  scene  of  action.  Each  has  left  a  voluminous  tran¬ 
script  of  his  life  in  his  correspondence  and  other  papers. 
In  the  memoirs  of  Frederic,  often  the  peevish  and  perverse, 
sometimes  the  petty  mars  the  brilliancy  of  his  mind  and 
the  honesty  of  his  heart.  And  what  men  he  chose  to 
have  around,  or  rather  under  him  !  As  Napoleon  is  un¬ 
veiled  in  letters  and  memoirs,  how  is  his  glory  tarnished 
by  the  mean,  the  selfish,  the  wicked  !  how  unscrupulous 
in  the  use  of  unscrupulous  tools  for  unscrupulous  ends  ! 
But  in  reading  the  correspondence  of  Washington,  —  let¬ 
ters  covering  a  long  series  of  years  and  a  vast  variety  of 
circumstances,  written  often  under  conditions  of  doubt, 
of  danger,  of  discouragement  and  detraction,  —  though  one 
may  find  a  uniformity  of  goodness  that  is  sometimes  tame, 
and  to  some  temperaments  even  tiresome,  yet  he  finds  no 
word  nor  thought  that  is  little  or  selfish  or  vain.1 

Those  who  estimate  greatness  only  by  illustrious 
achievements  may  wonder  how  a  general  wdio  fought 
so  few  battles,  and  was  so  habitually  on  the  line  of  de¬ 
fence  or  of  retreat,  should  be  acknowledged  among  the 
foremost  generals  of  the  world :  but  the  crossing  of  the 
Delaware,  the  battles  of  Trenton,  Princeton,  Monmouth, 
his  whole  handling  of  the  British  in  New  York  and  New 
Jersey,  and  the  victorious  siege  of  Yorktown,  showed  in 
Washington  a  combination  of  all  the  qualities  that  achieve 
military  fame ;  while  his  patient  courage  in  overcoming 
every  obstacle  that  jealousy,  faction,  delay,  want  of 

1  A  correspondent  of  the  London  Chronicle  of  July  22,  1780,  thus  de¬ 
scribed  A Washington  :  “There  is  a  remarkable  air  of  dignity  about  him, 
with  a  striking  degree  of  gracefulness:  he  has  an  excellent  understanding, 
without- much  quickness;  is  strictly  just,  vigilant,  and  generous;  an  affec¬ 
tionate  husband,  a  faithful  friend,  a  father  to  the  deserving  soldier;  gentle 
in  his  manners;  in  temper  rather  reserved;  a  total  stranger  to  religious 
prejudices.  ...  No  man  ever  united  in  his  oaaui  character  a  more  perfect 
alliance  of  the  virtues  of  the  philosopher  with  the  talents  of  a  general. 
Candor,  sincerity,  affability,  and  simplicity  seem  to  be  the  striking  fea¬ 
tures  of  his  character,  until  an  occasion  offers  of  displaying  the  most 
determined  bravery  and  independence  of  spirit.”  —  Mooke’s  Diary  of  the 
Revolution ,  ii.  301. 


150  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


money,  men,  arms,  ammunition,  could  throw  in  his  way, 
justifies  the  saying,  that  u  misfortunes  are  the  element  in 
which  he  shines,”1  and  shows  us  how,  like  William  of 
Orange,  he  u  was  slowly  compassing  a  country’s  emancipa¬ 
tion  through  a  series  of  defeats.” 2 

Those  who  estimate  greatness  by  memorable  sayings  of 
wit  or  wisdom,  or  novel  and  striking  utterances  of  thought, 
may  marvel  how  one  whose  average  official  papers  con¬ 
tained  so  many  political  and  moral  commonplaces,  ex¬ 
pressed  with  a  stately  formality  of  style,3  should  be 
acknowledged  among  the  foremost  statesmen  of  the 
world  ;  but  Washington’s  Farewell  Address  to  the  People 
of  the  United  States  is  a  disquisition  upon  government, 
that  in  depth  of  political  wisdom,  breadth  of  practical 
statesmanship,  loftiness  of  moral  principle,  historical  in¬ 
sight  into  tendencies,  and  prophetic  foresight  of  conse¬ 
quences,  is  unsurpassed  by  any  document  that  any  states¬ 
man  has  yet  given  to  the  world.4 

But  we  come  back  once  more  to  his  correspondence ; 
and,  as  we  turn  over  page  after  page  of  the  volumes  of 
Sparks,  how  the  conviction  grows  upon  us,  that,  in  the 
author  of  these  letters,  we  see  not  only  the  noblest  man¬ 
hood,  but  the  highest  wisdom  also,  in  that  rare  and  mas¬ 
terly  good  sense  which  has  understanding  of  men  and  of 
times ! 

The  greatness  of  Washington  centred  in  his  moral 
equipoise.  Fever  did  he  seek  occasion  for  himself;  but 
from  the  young  surveyor  and  adjutant  of  Virginia  to  the 
commander  of  the  American  army,  and  from  the  diffident 
member  of  the  legislature  and  of  Congress  to  the  Presi- 

1  William  Hooper  of  North  Carolina. 

2  Motley:  Rise  of  the  Dutch  Republic,  iii.  145. 

3  As  one  example  of  commonplace  sentiments  in  a  stilted  style,  take 
the  following  passage  from  Washington’s  reply  to  the  congratulations  of 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  upon  his  election  to  the 
presidency :  — 

“  While  I  reiterate  the  professions. of  my  dependence  upon  Heaven  as  the  source 
of  all  public  and  private  blessings,  I  will  observe,  that  the  general  prevalence  of  piety, 
philanthropy,  honesty,  industry,  and  economy,  seems,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  human 
affairs,  particularly  necessary  for  advancing  and  confirming  the  happiness  of  our 
country.  While  all  men  within  our  territories  are  protected  in  worshipping  the 
Deity  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  consciences,  it  is  rationally  to  be  expected  from 
them,  in  return,  that  they  will  all  be  emulous  of  evincing  the  sanctity  of  their  profes¬ 
sions  by  the  innocence  of  their  lives  and  the  beneficence  of  their  actions ;  for  no  man 
who  is  profligate  in  his  morals,  or  a  bad  member  of  the  civil  community,  can  possibly 
be  a  true  Christian,  or  a  credit  to  his  own  religious  society.” 

4  See  note  on  Hamilton’s  agency  at  end  of  Lecture. 


NOTE  ON  FEEDEEIC  AND  NAPOLEON.  ^51 

dent  of  the  United  States,  whatever  occasion  came  to 
Washington  he  was  ready  to  meet  it,  and  did  what  was 
laid  upon  him  with  balanced  judgment,  unfaltering  sereni¬ 
ty,  unselfish  integrity,  and  that  perfect  command  of  him¬ 
self  that  gave  him  command  of  men  and  of  powers.  The 
great  men  of  his  time  who  were  nearest  him  most  honored 
him ;  the  people  loved  and  revered  him  ;  humanity  has 
adopted  him.  The  hearts  of  all  peoples,  sated  with  the 
fame  of  captains  and  heroes,  look  up  to  Washington  as  the 
man.  Humanity  finds  its  highest  hope  in  the  realization 
in  him  of  its  own  ideal.  And  it  is  a  high  hope  for  humani¬ 
ty  that  it  accepts  him  as  its  t}rpe  of  greatness  ;  for,  in  the 
words  of  Brougham,  “  until  time  shall  be  no  more  will  a 
test  of  the  progress  which  our  race  has  made  in  wisdom 
and  virtue  be  derived  from  the  veneration  paid  to  the 
immortal  name  of  Washington.”  America,  at  least,  can 
have  no  higher  :  for  her  he  shall  stand  “  first  in  war,  first 
in  peace,  and  first  in  the  hearts  of  his  countrymen.” 


NOTE  ON  FEEDEEIC  AND  NAPOLEON. 

At  the  close  of  this  Lecture  in  Berlin,  one  German  lady  said  to 
another,  “  How  can  you  endure  to  hear  Frederic  the  .Great  spoken  of 
so  slightingly  ?  This  may  all  be  true :  but  he  was  every  thing  to  us  ; 
and  it  seems  like  exposing  the  faults  of  one’s  father.” 

“  But,”  answered  the  other,  “  this  picture  of  Frederic  is  true.  My 
grandfather  was  in  his  service  for  many  years,  first  as  page,  then  as 
officer ;  and  in  our  family  we  always  knew  of  these  unhappy  traits  of 
Frederic’s  character.  It  is  all  too  true ;  and  why  shouldn’t  it  be 
said  ?  ” 

When  the  conversation  was  reported  to  me,  I  contented  myself 
with  saying,  “  If  the  judgment  is  not  correct,  it  can’t  hurt  Frederic’s 
reputation  with  you ;  and,  if  it  is  true,  his  reputation  ought  still  to  be 
great  enough  to  bear  it.” 

I  would  not  be  wanting  in  respect  for  the  devotion  that  clings  to  a 
national  hero  in  spite  of  his  defects,  and  even  refuses  to  see  any  dim¬ 
ness  in  the  halo  of  his  fame.  Indeed,  I  may  as  well  confess  to"  a  cos¬ 
mopolitan  weakness  for  everybody’s  heroes.  An  advocate  of  peace,  I 
have,  however,  no  sympathy  with  the  spirit  that  denounces  all  mili¬ 
tary  heroes  as  scourges  of  mankind,  and  that  will  not  allow  that  war 
can  ever  be  a  school  of  true  greatness.  But  there  is  a  standard  of 
heioic  judgment  higher  than  military  achievement,  even  among  the 


152  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


heroes  of  battle ;  and  when  we  are  weighing  men  in  the  scale  of  his¬ 
tory,  with  a  view  to  selecting  models  for  after-ages,  we  must  do  jus¬ 
tice,  though  the  heavens  fall.  And  surely,  if  justice  is  done,  some 
stars  must  either  fall  from  heaven,  or  be  greatly  changed  as  to  position 
and  magnitude. 

“  Only  on  the  sad 
Cold  earth  there  are  who  say 
It  seemethbetterto  be  great  than  glad .” 

It  is  not  easy  for  an  American  to  enter  into  the  enthusiasm  for 
military  glory  that  still  possesses  the  more  intellectual  portion  of 
society  on  the  continent  of  Europe.  Under  the  conditions  of  modern 
warfare  that  have  so  nearly  reduced  war  to  an  exact  science,  and 
armies  to  calculating  machines,  there  is  far  less  opportunity  for 
strokes  of  military  genius  than  in  the  days  of  Frederic  and  of  Napo¬ 
leon.  But  the  glorification  of  the  military  spirit  survives  in  the 
homage  paid  in  so  many  countries  to  the  army  as  the  foremost  repre¬ 
sentative  of  the  national  life  and  power :  hence,  in  estimating  histori¬ 
cal  characters,  and  ranging  heroes  in  the  Walhalla,  the  European  is 
apt  to  have  another  standard  from  the  American,  who  is  trained  to 
look  for  greatness  rather  in  high  moral  qualities,  and  in  devotion  to 
mankind.  A  striking  and  really  a  touching  instance  of  the  military 
estimate  of  life  lies  before  me  at  this  moment.  The  venerable  Field- 
Marshal  Count  Wrangel  has  just  completed  the  eightieth  year  of  his 
military  service,  having  entered  the  army  at  the  age  of  thirteen.  At 
the  celebration  of  this  so  unusual  anniversary,  his  Majesty  the  Em¬ 
peror  sent  him  the  following  letter  :  — 

My  dear  General  Field-Marshal,  —  The  festive  remembrancers  of 
your  most  active  life  more  and  more  -take  on  the  character  of  a  specially 
favoring  Providence.  The  jubilee  of  your  fifty-years’  service,  most  com¬ 
monly  the  close  of  a  military  life,  lies  to-day  thirty  years  behind  you;  and 
in  these  thirty  years  lie  such  great  services  and  such  eminent  deeds,  that 
with  you  the  fiftieth-year  jubilee  has  marked  only  the  beginning  of  the 
second  division  of  your  famous  career.  To-day  it  is  full  eighty  years  that 
you  have  worn  with  such  distinction  the  honorable  dress  of  the  soldier; 
and  above  all  things  must  you  to-day  be  filled  with  deep  emotion  at  the 
grace  of  Almighty  God,  who  has  honored  you  above  so  many  others,  in 
that  you  are  able  to  look  back  over  so  long  a  time  of  most  praiseworthy 
activity.  To  him,  the  gracious  God,  before  all,  be  the  honor  of  this  day’s 
festival.  But  I  speak  not  for  myself  alone,  but  as  the  heir  of  three  kings, 
as  deeply  moved  I  to-day  thank  you  in  the  name  of  these  kings,  to  whom 
you  have  kept  the  oath  of  fidelity  in  such  an  exemplary  manner,  and 
whom  you  have  served  with  such  signality  and  devotion,  that  your  name 
for  all  time  will  hold  an  honored  place  in  the  history  of  the  Prussian  army. 
That  with  my  whole  heart  I  number  you  with  the  prominent  men  whom 
the  Prussian  army  has  produced,  I  wish  to-day  to  prove  by  apprising  you 
that  I  have  concluded  at  a  future  day  to  erect  a  statue  of  you,  that  there¬ 
by  the  latest  posterity  may  retain  the  knowledge  of  your  services,  and  my 
appreciation  of  them. 

As  a  remembrancer  of  this  day  I  send  you  the  accompanying  sword, 
the  weapon  that  you  have  worn  for  eighty  years,  with  which  at  Etoges, 
with  your  regiment,  you  cut  through  the  enemy,  and  which  has  every¬ 
where  shown  the  troops  that  you  have  led  the  way  to  victory.  As  the 
statue  to  the  world,  so  may  the  sword  to  your  remote  posterity  bear  wit¬ 
ness  of  the  gratitude  and  special  esteem  of 

Your  grateful,  devoted  king, 

Wilhelm. 


NOTE  ON  FREDETIIC  AND  NAPOLEON. 


153 


This  beautiful  example  of  life-long  loyalty  and  of  royal  friendship 
will  be  its  own  monument  in  history,  —  honorable  alike  to  the  sub¬ 
ject  and  the  king.  Its  influence  upon  all  younger  officers  will  be 
most  stimulating.  Said  one  of  these  to  me  the  other  day,  “You 
republicans  cannot  know  the  sentiment  of  personal  loyalty  to  the 
king.  This  devotion  is  the  life  of  an  officer;  and  there  is  something 
in  it  so  very  noble  and  fine.”  Here  was  a  spirit  that  would  never 
stop  to  inquire  whether  a  king  was  right  or  wrong;  whether  the  cause 
is  noble  or  base,  just  or  cruel.  This  is  the  true  spirit  of  the  soldier. 
We  find  it  admirably  expressed  by  Gen.  Sherman  in  his  answers  to 
the  congressional  committee  upon  the  employment  of  troops  in  the 
South. 

The  Chairman.  —  The  object  of  my  inquiry  wras  to  ascertain  wheth¬ 
er  troops  could  be  spared  from  the  South  to  re-enforce  the  army  in 
the  Indian  country. 

Gen.  Sherman.  —  I  am  compelled  to  answer  that  they  cannot  be 
spared,  because  those  who  are  intrusted  with  power  judge  their  pres¬ 
ence  there  necessary.  That  decision  to  me  is  sacred  and  final,  and 
governs  me. 

Mr.  Terry.  —  You  do  not,  however,  say  that  it  is  your  judgment. 

.  Gen.  Sherman.  —  It  is  hardly  right  to  ask  a  soldier  for  his  opinion. 
Behind  his  duty  he  ought  not  to  form  an  opinion. 

This  is  the  only  doctrine  for  a  soldier.  One  can  respect  it,  and 
honor  the  man  who  is  true  to  it.  Without  this,  there  could  be  no 
military  discipline ;  and,  so  long  as  an  army  is  needed  for  police  or 
for  defence,  it  is  vital  to  the  public  safety  and  order  that  this  unques¬ 
tioning  loyalty  should  be  maintained.  The  saying  of  Kossuth, 
“  Bayonets  think,”  marks  the  subversion  of  all  military  order  and 
authority. 

But,  while  heartily  conceding  this,  I  rejoice  yet  more  heartily  that 
American  youth  are  not  trained  to  look  upon  the  dress  of  a  soldier  as 
honorable,  irrespective  of  the  master  or  the  cause  he  serves,  —  much 
less  to  look  upon  the  mere  trade  of  soldiering  as  honorable  at  all ; 
that  to  them  a  retrospect  of  battles  and  victories,  a  name  in  the 
army,  and  a  memorial  sword,  are  not  held  up  as  objects  of  ambition, 
the  motive  of  life,  and  the  solace  of  age.  Thank  God,  they  breathe 
another  atmosphere,  and  have  before  them  another  standard  of  hero¬ 
ism,  honor,  and  greatness.  It  is  by  such  a  standard  —  that  of  devo¬ 
tion  to  freedom,  to  justice,  and  to  man  —  that  I  have  attempted  to 
measure  Frederic,  Napoleon,  and  Washington.  What  did  they  sev¬ 
erally  attempt  ?  and  with  what  motive  V  What  did  they  achieve  ? 
and  to  what  end  ?  Much  as  v7e  may  concede  to  the  soldier  in  loyalty 
to  his  calling,  wre  may  not  forget  that  Frederic  and  Napoleon  had 
often  the  game  of  war  in  their  own  hands,  could  make  war  or  peace 
at  their  own  will ;  and  hence  their  ruling  motives  and  aims  must  be 
taken  into  account  in  judging  even  of  their  military  achievements. 
These  last  must  not  be  suffered  to  overbalance  those  obligations  of 
humanity  that  attend  the  possession  of  great  genius  and  power. 

Much  must  be  excused  in  Frederic  because  of  the  unhappy  experi¬ 
ences  of  his  youth,  and  the  complications  of  his  political  inheritance. 
It  is  a  marvel  these  had  not  suppressed  all  the  tenderness  and  mag- 


154  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


nanimity  that  were  in  liis  nature.  Ilis  official  utterances  on  coming 
to  the  throne  were,  no  doubt,  sincere  intentions,  formed  before  the 
actual  experience  of  power  :  “  Our  grand  care  will  be  to  further  the 
country’s  well-being,  and  to  make  every  one  of  our  subjects  con¬ 
tented  and  happy.  .  .  .  My  will  henceforth  is,  if  it  ever  chance  that 
my  particular  interest  and  the  general  good  of  my  countries  should 
seem  to  go  against  each  other,  in  that  case  my  will  is  that  the  latter 
always  be  preferred.”  This  was  honest  and  noble.  But,  as  he  went 
on  in  life,  Frederic  avoided  any  such  collision  by  the  simple  expedient 
of  making  the  good  of  his  country  identical  with  his  own  will,  him¬ 
self  being  supreme  actor  and  judge.  I  have  said  that  his  personality 
was  an  intensified  patriotism  ;  but,  mutatis  mutandis,  his  patriotism 
could  also  be  an  exaggerated  selfhood.  Frederic  performed  prodi¬ 
gies  for  Prussia  ;  yet  some  of  her  own  historians  —  and  perhaps  his 
Royal  Highness  the  Crown  Prince  inclines  to  their  view  —  are  of 
opinion,  that,  under  the  peculiar  difficulties  of  his  position,  the  Great 
Elector  showed  even  more  of  military  genius  and  administrative 
capacity.  Frederic  put  his  own  stirring  impulses  into  every  thing  he 
touched,  —  into  laws,  trade,  letters,  arts,  as  well  as  arms.  He  was 
indeed  the  soul  of  the  nation  that  he  filled  with  a  life  so  grand,  so 
potent,  and  so  lustrous. 

His  famous  secret  instructions  of  Jan.  10,  1757,  to  Count  Finck, 
bring  into  fine  relief  Frederic’s  self-sacrifice  for  his  country,  and  may 
offset  a  good  deal  of  personal  vanity :  “  If  I  should  have  the  fatality 
to  be  taken  prisoner  by  the  enemy,  I  prohibit  all  of  you  from  paying 
the  least  regard  to  my  person,  or  taking  the  least  heed  of  what  I 
might  write  from  my  place  of  detention.  Should  such  misfortune 
happen  me,  I  wish  to  sacrifice  myself  for  the  State ;  and  you  must 
obey  my  brother,  who,  as  well  as  all  my  ministers  and  generals,  shall 
answer  to  me  with  their  heads  not  to  offer  any  province  or  any  ran¬ 
som  for  me,  but  to  continue  the  war,  pushing  their  advantages,  as  if 
I  never  had  existed  in  the  world.”  This,  again,  is  both  frank  and 
fine.  But,  when  we  apply  to  Frederic  the  touchstone  of  an  unselfish 
devotion  to  freedom  and  to  man,  he  fails  where  Washington  stands; 
and,  without  depreciating  Frederic,  I  have  simply  shown  that  Wash¬ 
ington  attained  to  a  higher  standard  in  nobleness  of  character,  and 
greatness  of  achievement.  Those  who  prefer  the  rose-colored  view 
of  Frederic  will  find  this  at  its  best  in  Mr.  Bancroft’s  tenth  volume,1 
and  at  high-flown  intensity  in  Carlyle’s  “History  of  Frederic  the 
Second.”  In  corroboration  of  the  view  taken  in  the  Lecture,  and 
indeed  going  quite  beyond  it,  I  here*  quote  a  few  lines  from  a  critic, 
who  in  keenness  of  insight,  and  calmness  of  judgment,  is  unsurpassed, 
—  Mr.  James  Russell  Lowell :  — 

“  Friedrich  was  doubtless  a  remarkable  man,  but  surely  very  far 
below  any  lofty  standard  of  heroic  greatness.  He  was  the  last  of 
the  European  kings  who  could  look  upon  his  kingdom  as  his  private 
patrimony;  and  it  was  this  estate  of  his,  this  piece  of  property, 
which  he  so  obstinately  and  successfully  defended.  He  had  no  idea 
of  country  as  it  was  understood  by  an  ancient  Greek  or  Roman,  as  it 


1  Chap.  iii.  p.  97  seq. 


NOTE  ON  FREDERIC  AND  NAPOLEON. 


155 


is  understood  by  a  modern  Englishman  or  American.  .  .  .  "We  doubt 
if  Friedrich  would  have  been  liked  as  a  private  person,  or  even  as  an 
unsuccessful  king.  He  apparently  attached  very  few  people  to  him¬ 
self,— fewer  even  than  his  brutal  old  Squire  Western  of  a  father.  .  .  . 
In  spite  of  Mr.  Carlyle's  adroit  statement  of  the  case,  we  feel  that 
his  hero  was  essentially  hard,  narrow,  and  selfish.  .  .  .  The  kingship 
that  was  in  him,  and  which  won  Mr.  Carlyle  to  be  his  biographer,  is 
that  of  will  merely,  of  rapid  and  relentless  command.”  Without 
indorsing  this  to  the  full,  let  me  earnestly  recommend  all  who  have 
waded  through  Carlyle’s  “  Frederic  ”  to  read  Lowell’s  critique  in  his 
“  Study  Windows.” 

Napoleon,  like  Frederic,  had  in  his  youth  some  noble  sentiments 
of  freedom,  progress,  and  universal  good-will ;  but  like  Frederic,  too, 
he  was  not  principled  enough  in  his  higher  nature  to  withstand  the 
lust  of  domination.  In  his  moody  complaints  to  his  brother  Joseph, 
when  his  mind  had  been  poisoned  with  suspicions  of  Josephine, 
Napoleon  touched  bottom  in  his  own  soul.  “  I  am  tired  of  human 
nature.  I  want  solitude  and  isolation.  Greatness  fatigues  me : 
feeling  is  dried  up.  At  twenty-nine,  glory  has  become  flat.  I  have 
exhausted  every  thing.  I  have  no  refuge  but  pure  selfishness.”  1 
This  “refuge”  of  despondency  becomes  his  tower  of  strength  in 
supremacy.  Seven  years  later  he  could  write,  “  My  people  will 
always  be  of  one  opinion  when  it  knows  that  I  am  pleased,  because 
that  proves  that  its  interests  have  been  protected.”2  “I  take  the 
greatest  interest  in  your  prosperity,  and  particularly  in  your  glory. 
In  your  position,  it  is  the  first  of  wants :  without  it,  life  can  have  no 
charm.”  3  “  If  you  do  not  begin  [as  King  of  Italy]  by  making  your¬ 
self  feared,  you  will  suffer  for  it.”  4  “  There  is  nothing  sacred  after  a 

conquest.”5  “I  hope,  that,  by  setting  to  work  earnestly  to  form  a 
good  army  and  fleet,  you  will  assist  me  to  become  master  of  the 
Mediterranean,  which  is  the  chief  and  perpetual  aim  of  my  policy. 
.  .  .  I  would  rather  have  ten  years  of  war  than  allow  your  kingdom 
to  remain  incomplete,  and  Sicily  in  dispute.”6  “  To  die  is  not  your 
business,  but  to  live  and  to  conquer.  I  shall  find  in  Spain  the  pillars 
of  Hercules,  but  not  the  limits  of  my  power.”7 

Just  now,  Europe  is  filled  wTith  indignation  at  the  outrages  commit¬ 
ted  in  Bulgaria  by  the  Turkish  army.  Seventy  years  ago,  Napoleon, 
as  the  conqueror  of  Italy,  had  forced  upon  the  people  of  Naples  his 
brother  Joseph  as  king,  much  as  Louis  Napoleon  attempted  to  force 
Maximilian  upon  the  Mexicans.  Neapolitans  who  resisted  this  for¬ 
eign  king,  upheld  by  a  foreign  army,  were  denounced  by  Napoleon  as 
rebels ;  and  here  are  the  measures  he  urged  upon  his  mild  and 
humane  brother:  “I  am  glad  to  see  that  a  village  of  the  insurgents 
has  been  burnt.  Severe  examples  are  necessary.  I  presume  that  the 
soldiers  have  been  allowed  to  plunder  this  village.  This  is  the  way 
to  treat  villages  which  revolt.”  8  “I  am  impatient  to  hear  that  you 
have  occupied  Cassano.  Besides  this,  you  should  order  two  or  three 

1  Letters  to  Joseph,  July  25,  1798.  2  Ibid.,  Dec.  15,  1805. 

3  Ibid.,  Feb.  7,  1800.  4  Ibid.,  March  3,  1800. 

6  Ibid.,  March  31, 1806.  6  Ibid.,  July  21,  1800.  7  Ibid.,  July  31, 1808. 

8  Ibid.,  April  21,  1800. 


156  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


of  the  large  villages  that  have  behaved  the  worst  to  be  pillaged:  it 
•will  be  an  example,  and  will  restore  the  gayety,  and  the  desire  for 
action,  of  your  soldiers.” 1  “  Let  the  houses  of  thirty  of  the  principal 

heads  of  villages  be  burnt,  and  distribute  their  property  among  the 
troops.  Disarm  all  the  inhabitants,  and  pillage  five  or  six  of  the 
large  villages  which  have  behaved  worst.”  2  “I  am  waiting  to  hear 
how  many  estates  you  have  confiscated  in  Calabria,  and  how  many 
rebels  you  have  executed.  You  should  shoot  in  every  village  three  of 
the  ringleaders.  Do  not  spare  the  priests  more  than  others.”  3  “I 
should  like  very  much  to  hear  of  a  revoft  of  the  Neapolitan  populace. 
You  will  never  be  their  master  till  you  have  made  an  example  of 
them.”  4  To  Joseph  as  King  of  Spain  :  “  You  must  hang  at  Madrid  a 
score  of  the  worst  characters.  To-morrow  I  intend  to  have  hanged 
here  [Valladolid]  seven  notorious  for  their  excesses.  ...  I  have 
arrested  here  fifteen  of  the  worst  characters,  and  have  ordered  them  to 
be  shot.”5  “  When  a  general  has  occasion  to  speak  of  his  strength, 
he  ought  to  render  it  formidable  by  exaggeration,  doubling  or  tre¬ 
bling  his  numbers.”  6 

It  would  not  be  fair,  indeed,  to  judge  Napoleon  at  the  beginning  of 
the  century  by  the  mitigated  rules  of  warfare  that  prevail  toward  its 
close.  But  neither  should  we  forget  that  he  issued  these  relentless 
orders  against  peoples  whose  countries  he  had  overrun  and  subjugat¬ 
ed,  and  upon  whom  he  had  imposed  rulers  and  laws  alien  to  their 
soil  and  institutions  ;  that  he,  more  than  any  man  of  his  time,  had  it 
in  his  power  to  mitigate  the  cruelties  of  war,  yet  he  urgently  ordered 
the  burning  and  pillaging  of  villages,  which  the  Turks  are  condemned 
for  not  repressing.  Nowhere  is  the  marvellous  military  and  adminis¬ 
trative  capacity  of  Napoleon  seen  to  such  advantage  as  in  his  .confi¬ 
dential  correspondence  with  his  brother  Joseph  ;  yet  in  these  intimate 
communications  one  reads  also  his  moral  weakness  and  the  secret  of 
his  failure.  That  gentle,  humane,  wise,  and  loving  brother,  read  him 
truly,  and  counselled  him  aright.  As  the  signs  of  re-action  appeared, 
Joseph  wrote,  “  I  weep  over  the  gradual  diminution  of  an  immense 
glory,  which  would  have  been  better  preserved  by  generosity  and 
heroism  than  by  any  extension  of  power.”  7  And,  as  the  fatal  hour 
drew  near,  Joseph  pointed  out  how  Napoleon  could  yet  re-assure 
France  :  “  If  you  will  make  a  lasting  peace  with  Europe,  and  if, 
returning  to  your  natural  kindness,  and  renouncing  your  assumed 
character  and  your  perpetual  efforts,  you  will  at  last  consent  to  re¬ 
linquish  the  part  of  the  wonderful  man  for  that  of  the  great  sover¬ 
eign.”  8  Then  comes  the  proud  answer :  “  As  long  as  I  live,  I  will 
be  master  everywhere  in  France.  Your  character  is  opposed  to  mine. 
You  like  to  flatter  people,  and  to  yield  to  their  wishes  :  I  like  them  to 
try  to  please  me,  and  to  obey  my  wishes.  I  am  as  much  a  sovereign 
now  as  I  was  at  Austerlitz.  .  .  .  There  is  some  difference  between 
the  time  of  Lafayette,  when  the  people  ruled,  and  the  present  time, 
when  I  rule.”  9  A  month  later  he  had  signed  his  abdication.10 


1  Letters  to  Joseph,  July  30, 1806. 
8  Ibid.,  Aug  6.,  1806. 

6  Ibid.,  Jan.  30  and  12,  1809. 

7  Aug.  8,  1810.  8  March  9,  1814. 


2  Ibid.,  July  13, 1806. 

4  Ibid.,  Aug.  17, 1806. 

8  Ibid.,  Oct.  10,  1809. 

9  March  14,  1814.  10  April  18 


NOTE  ON  FREDERIC  AND  NAPOLEON. 


157 


Mods.  Thiers  has  given  us  the  term  by  which  to  characterize  Napo¬ 
leon, —  “ moral  intemperance The  French  use  this  term  for  any 
excess,  or  want  of  regulation ;  as,  for  instance,  intemperance  of  study, 
learning,  &c. ;  just  as  Festus  said  to  Paul,  “  Much  learning  hath  made 
thee  mad.”  “Politics,”  says  Thiers,  “is  character  much  more  than 
mind;  and  it  was  just  there  that  Napoleon  failed.  Intemperance 
is  the  essential  trait  of  his  career.”  “Prodige  de  genie  et  de  passion, 
jete.dans  le  chaos  d’une  revolution,  il  s’y  deploie,  s’y  developpe,  la 
domine,  se  substitue  a  elle  et  en  prend  l’energie,  l’audace,  l’inconti- 
nence.”  1  Napoleon  lacked  the  regulative  power  of  deep  moral  con¬ 
victions  :  the  elements  of  his  nature,  that,  in  due  restraint,  would 
have  made  him  unexceptionably  great,  drove  him  to  intemperance  of 
ambition,  of  self-will,  of  egoism. 

Where  Napoleon  failed,  Washington  stands  pre-eminent.  His 
strength  was  in  self-regulation,  in  moral  equipoise.  I  confess  I  was 
long  in  searching  after  the  secret  of  his  greatness  ;  and  it  was  not  till 
I  went  through  the  patient  task  of  reading  his  voluminous  correspond¬ 
ence  that  I  found  it,  and  found  it  here,  —  in  his  equilibrium  of 
mind  and  of  character;  political  wisdom,  the  result  of  profound 
reflection,  expressed  in  terms  of  plain  common  sense  ;  moral  rectitude, 
undeviating  in  thought,  motive,  or  action  ;  devotion  to  country  and 
mankind,  in  which  the  consideration  of  personal  interests  never 
appears,  except  in  the  form  of  a  personal  sacrifice  for  the  common 
good.  In  the  darkest  hour  of  the  Revolution  he  said,  “I  see  my 
duty,  —  that  of  standing  up  for  the  liberties  of  my  country  ;  and,  what¬ 
ever  difficulties  and  discouragements  lie  in  my  way,  I  dare  not  shrink 
from  it ;  and  I  rely  on  that  Being  who  has  not  left  to  us  the  choice  of 
duties,  that,  whilst  I  shall  conscientiously  discharge  mine,  I  shall  not 
finally  lose  my  reward.”  2 

The  honor  of  the  “  Farewell  Address  ”  has  been  claimed  for 
Hamilton;  but  the  draught  in  Washington’s  handwriting,  in  the 
Lenox  Library,  New  York,  shows  that,  however  Hamilton  may  have 
assisted  in  the  work  by  suggestion  and  revision,  the  conception  and 
execution  of  the  address  are  Washington’s  own.  Nearly  every  great 
mind  has  some  supreme  moment  in  which  it  surpasses  itself.  "Jeffer¬ 
son  never  wrote  another  paragraph  that  would  compare  with  the 
opening  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  The  solemn  intensity 
of  feeling  at  his  retirement  compressed  the  whole  nature  of  Washing- 

1  Histoire  du  Consulat  et  l’Empire,  tome  xx.  p.  718. 

2  A  striking  and  trustworthy  testimony  to  Washington  as  a  general  is 
given  by  Gen.  De  Kalb  in  his  letters  to  the  Comte  de  Broglie.  At  first 
he  mistook  Washington’s  modesty  for  timidity,  his  reserve  for  vanitv,  his 
reticence  in  councils  for  lack  of  independent  judgment.  Hence  De  Kalb 
criticised  his  new  commander  as  “too  indolent,  too  slow,  far  too  weak,” 
and  “too  easily  led.”  By  and  by  he  recognized  in  Washington  “  the  best 
intentions  and  a  sound  judgment.”  Later  on  he  saw  that  Washington 
“did  more  every  day  than  could  be  expected  from  any  general  in  the 
world  in  the  same  circumstances.”  He  then  wrote  to  De  Broglie,  “I 
think  him  [Washington]  the  only  proper  person,  .  .  .  by  his  natural  and 
acquired  capacity,  his  bravery,  good  sense,  uprightness,  and  honesty,  to 
keep  up  the  spirits  of  the  army  and  people.”  —  iSee  Kapp’s  Life  of  Kalb, 
and  Gkeene’s  Notice  in  Atlantic  Monthly  for  October,  1875. 


158  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


ton  into  this  supreme  moment,  and  showed  him  to  the  world  a  phi¬ 
losopher  and  statesman  of  the  highest  wisdom  and  virtue. 

There  is  a  popular  tradition  that  Frederic  the  Great  sent  a  sword, 
or  his  own  portrait,  to  Washington,  with  the  message,  “From  the 
oldest  general  to  the  greatest.”  The  story,  however,  seems  to  have 
no  evidential  authority ;  and  Mr.  Bancroft,  who  had  access  to  the 
unpublished  correspondence  of  Frederic,  says,  “I  sought  for  some 
expression,  on  the  part  of  Frederic,  of  a  personal  interest  in  Wash¬ 
ington  ;  but  I  found  none.”  1  But  in  Washington  we  see  the  nobility 
of  manhood  that  could  not  be  ennobled  by  the  gifts  of  kings. 

1  One  cannot  attach  any  great  importance  to  the  Correspondance  secrete 
et  inedite  sur  Louis  XVI.,  Marie  Antoinette,  &c. ;  but  I  give  here  the 
passages  cited  by  Mr.  Bigelow  in  his  Life  of  Franklin  (ii.  394):  “In  a 
letter  which  the  King  of  Prussia  has  written  to  one  of  his  literary  corre¬ 
spondents  in  Paris,  this  passage  occurs:  ‘I  send  you  my  secret  against 
hydrophobia.  It  should  be  administered  to  the  British  Parliament,  which 
acts  like  an  infuriated  fool  in  the  American  business.  I  have  the  abiding 
hope  that  you  will  don  your  cuirass  against  this  God  dem;  that  you  will 
aid  the  Colonies  to  become  free,  and  retake  Canada,  which  they  so  wrong¬ 
fully  took  from  you.  It  is  the  wish  of  my  heart,  and  it  should  be  also  the 
dictate  of  policy’  (Nov.  3, 1777).  Again:  Nov.  17,  the  king  to  D’Alembert, 
‘I  like  these  brave  fellows,  and  cannot  help  secretly  hoping  for  their 
success.’  ” 


LECTURE  IV. 

TI3JE  NATION  TESTED  BY  THE  VICISSITUDES  OF  A  CEN- 

TUEY. 

THE  government  of  the  United  States  is  no  longer  an 
experiment ;  nor  is  the  nation  on  probation.  That 
the  government  shall  fall,  or  give  place  to  other  forms ; 
that  the  nation  shall  decline,  and  linger  on  in  slow  decay, 
or  giv  e  place  to  some  fresher  stock  and  another  type  of 
civilization,  — -  all  this  may  be  written  in  the  Book  of 
Fate.  But  this  would  only  repeat  the  lesson  of  history, —  ' 
that  the  permanence  of  no  civilization  and  of  no  people  is 
guaranteed,,  either  by  political  forms,  by  social  institutions, 
or  by  conditions  of  race  and  territor}^.  Unless  there  be" 
in  the  people  a  spiritual  and  moral  life,  working  in  and 
through  their  economic  forms  toward  ever  higher  and 
nobler  ends,  and  making  the  strength  of  justice  and  peace 
their  safeguard  against  outward  invasion,  then  nothing 
can  keep  a  nation  hale  with  the  growth  of  centuries. 

Who  can  read  without  a  touch  of  melancholy  the  clos¬ 
ing  paragraph  of  Mommsen’s  “  History  of  Rome  ”  ? _ “  We 

have  reached  the  end  of  the  Roman  Republic.  We  have 
seen  it  rule  for  five  hundred  years  in  Italy  and  in  the 
countries  on  the  Mediterranean.  We  have  seen  it  brought 
to  ruin  in  politics  and  morals,  religion  and  literature,  not 
through  outward  violence,  but  through  inward  decay,  and 
thereby  making  room  for  the  new  monarchy  of  Caesar. 
There  was  in  the  world  as  Caesar  found  it  much  of  the 
noble  heritage  of  past  centuries,  and  an  infinite  abundance 
of  pomp  and  glory,  but  little  spirit,  still  less  taste,  and, 
least  of  all,  true  delight  in  life.  It  was  indeed  an  old 
world;  and  even  the  richly-gifted  patriotism  of  Caesar 

159 


100  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

could  not  make  it  young  again.  Tke  dawn  does  not 
return  till  after  the  night  has  fully  set  in  and  run  its 
course.”  Such  was  the  fate  of  Rome  and  of  Italy.  To 
other  nations  the  night  has  never  been  broken  since  first 
it  set  in ;  while  some  are  even  now  struggling  doubtfully 
between  day  and  night.  Still  the  beautiful  analogy  of 
Mommsen  must  not  be  received  as  the  universal  law  of 
history.  Sometimes,  at  least,  that  which  is  taken  for  the 
setting-in  of  night  is  only  the  coming-on  of  an  eclipse, 
from  whose  chill,  ghastly,  ominous  shadow  the  sun  at 
length  emerges,  to  mount  undimmed  toward  the  zenith. 
An  increase  of  his  spots  may  indicate,  not  impending 
obscuration  or  destruction,  but  the  burning-up  of  grosser 
matter  by  which  he  intensifies  his  light  and  heat. 

If  the  principle  of  decay  is  lodged  in  the  very  life  of 
nations,  then  the  American  people  must  decline,  in  their 
turn ;  but,  so  far  as  any  prognostics  can  be  detected  in 
their  organic  constitution  or  national  life,  they  need  feel 
no  alarm  till  they  shall  have  advices  that  Macaulay’s  New- 
Zealander  has  “  taken  his  stand  on  a  broken  arch  of  Lon¬ 
don  Bridge  to  sketch  the  ruins  of  St.  Paul’s.”  The 
nation  is  not  likely  to  die  young:  its  Constitution  has 
gone  through  the  seasoning  process,  and  come  out  with 
new  vigor  from  every  attack.  Always  a  power  of  life,  it 
has  shown  itself,  in  time  of  need,  a  living  power.  On  retir¬ 
ing  from  the  presidency,  Washington  said  to  his  country¬ 
men,  “  This  government,  the  offspring  of  our  own  choice, 
uninfluenced  and  unawed,  adopted  upon  full  investigation 
and  mature  deliberation,  completely  free  in  its  principles, 
yin  the  distribution  of  its  powers  uniting  security  with 
energy,  and  containing  within  itself  a  provision  for  its  own 
amendment,  lias  a  just  claim  to  your  confidence  and  your 
support.”  To-day  a  leading  organ  of  opinion  in  England 
pronounces  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  “the 
most  sacred  political  document  in  the  whole  world.”  1 

The  government  that  Washington  commended  as  “well 
v  worth  a  fair  and  full  experiment  ”  has  taken  its  place  in 
the  halls  of  political  science  as  an  authoritative  example, 
has  taken  its  seat  in  the  high  court  of  nations  as  a  co-ordi- 
.j  nate  power.  It  no  longer  asks  philosophers  to  stand  by 

1  See  leading  editorial  of  the  London  Times,  Dec.  9, 1875. 


THE  HATIOH  TESTED. 


161 


and  see  liow  it  shall  work ;  it  no  longer  asks  the  govern¬ 
ments  of  the  Old  World  to  he  considerate  of  its  youth,  and 
grant  it  a  probationary  place  in  their  councils.  In  its  Con¬ 
stitution  it  has  given  to  philosophers  the  most  important 
contribution  of  modern  times  to  the  science  of  govern¬ 
ment  :  by  that  Constitution  it  tests  all  other  governments, 
however  ancient  and  revered,  and,  in  virtue  of  this  organ¬ 
ized  nationality,  sits  among  the  nations  an  arbiter  and  a 
judge  by  the  same  right  that  they  claim  for  themselves.1 
The  United  States  are  not  making  an  experiment  in  gov¬ 
ernment  for  mankind  to  judge  of:  they  are  not  on  trial, 
and  need  no  plea.  They  have  accomplished  a  fact  in  gov¬ 
ernment  that  now  belongs  to  the  science  and  history  of 
the  world.  Though  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
is  only  eighty-five  years  old,  its  spirit  is  as  old  as  the 
settlement  of  the  country  more  than  two  hundred  and 
sixty  years  ago.  It  was  the  consummate  flower  of  a  politi¬ 
cal  society,  that,  drawing  the  sap  of  liberty  from  the  best 
stock  of  Europe,  had  grown  with  the  vigor  of  a  new  soil 
for  nearly  two  centuries.  Therefore  it  is  impossible  to 
separate  the  Constitution  from  the  life  of  the  nation,  or 
this  from  the  nations  and  ages  that  had  gone  before.  The 
framers  of  the  Constitution,  indeed,  did  not  consider  their 
work  perfect,  since  they  incorporated  with  the  instrument 
a  provision  for  amending  it ;  and  the  people  of  the  United 
States  have  shown  that  they  do  not  worship  a  bit  of  parch¬ 
ment,  since  they  have  amended  their  Constitution  more 
than  once,  and  are  likely  to  amend  it  again.  This  Consti¬ 
tution  might  not  be  exactly  fitted  to  any  other  nation,  nor 
any  other  nation  exactly  fitted  for  such  a  government ;  for 
the  government  of  a  people  must  grow  out  of  their  condi¬ 
tions  of  race,  territory,  temperament,  education,  society, 
development  But,  after  all  these  qualifications  and 
abatements,  it  remains  true,  that  in  reconciling  liberty 
with  order,  individual  well-being  with  the  public  good, 
local  independence  with  collective  power,  the  separate 
responsibility  of  the  parts  of  government  with  the  joint 
efficiency  of  the  whole,  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  providing  a  government  by  the  people,  of  the  peo¬ 
ple,  for  the  people,  is  the  great  contribution  of  modern 

1  See  note  at  the  end  of  the  Lecture. 


102  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

times  to  the  science  of  government,  ancl  44  the  most  sacred 
political  document  in  the  whole  world.” 

Theoretically  the  Constitution  speaks  for  itself,  and  is 
for  the  discussions  of  schools  of  political  ethics ;  but  it  is 
not  too  soon  to  speak  of  the  Constitution  practically  in 
these  terms  of  confidence.  Trial  is  no  less  a  test  of  sta- 
v  bility  than  time.  The  government  of  the  United  States 
has  been  tested  by  every  form  of  mischief  and  peril  that 
could  threaten  its  existence.  Measured  by  events,  it  has 
gone  through  a  vast  cycle  of  national  experiences.  It  is 
my  purpose,  in  this  Lecture,  to  set  in  array  these  vicissi¬ 
tudes  of  the  republic,  and  leave  the  facts  to  answer  the 
piedictions  of  its  enemies,  and  allay  the  fears  of  its  friends. 

We  are  told  that  party-spirit  will  prove  our  ruin;  that 
the  strife  of  factions,  which  wrought  such  mischief  in 
Greece  and  Rome,  in  the  Italian  republics  of  the  middle 
ages,  in  the  French  republic,  is  intensified  in  the  United 
States  by  the  license  of  the  press,  by  the  personalities  of 
political  campaigns,  and  by  the  spoils  of  office  held  up  as 
a  prize  to  the  winning  party ;  and  that  this  strife  must 
lead  at  length  to  blows,  to  usurpation,  or  the  despotism  of 
a  mob.  Washington  warned  his  countrymen  44in  the 
most  solemn  manner  against  the  baneful  effects  of  the 
spirit  of  party,”  as  the  44 worst  enemy”  of  popular  gov¬ 
ernments..  “A  fire  not  to  be  quenched,  it  demands  a 
uniform  vigilance  to  prevent  its  bursting  into  a  flame,  lest, 
instead  of  warming,  it  should  consume.”  1 
.Were  we  wholly  without  experience,  the  occasional 
violence  of  party-spirit  and  the  indecencies  of  the  politi¬ 
cal  press  might  alarm  us  for  the  peace  of  the  country  and 
the  preservation  of  public  morals.  Whatever  our  party 
affinities,  or  our  personal  feelings  towards  a  particular 
President,  who  can  read  without  a  feeling  of  humiliation 
and  disgust  such  language  as  this  spoken  of  any  incum¬ 
bent  of  that  high  office?  — 44 In  all  this  affair  the  language 
of  the  President  has  been  that  of  a  heartless  despot,  sofe- 
ly  occupied  with  the  preservation  of  his  own  authority. 
Ambition  is  his  crime,  and  it  will  be  his  punishment  too. 
Intrigue  is  his  native  element;  and  intrigue  will  confound 
his  tricks,  and  deprive  him  of  his  power.  He  governs  by 

1  Farewell  Address. 


THE  FATION  TESTED. 


163 


means  of  corruption ;  and  liis  immoral  practices  will  re¬ 
dound  to  Iris  shame  and  confusion.  His  conduct  in  the 
political  arena  has  been  that  of  a  shameless  and  lawless 
gamester.  He  succeeded  at  the  time  :  but  the  hour  of 
retribution  approaches,  and  he  will  be  obliged  to  disgorge 
his  winnings,  to  throw  aside  his  false  dice,  and  to  end  his 
days  in  some  retirement,  where  he  may  curse  his  madness 
at  his.  leisure  ;  for  repentance  is  a  virtue  with  which  his 
heart  is  likely  to  remain  forever  unacquainted.”  1  Now,  do 
not  mistake  this  fo.r  a  philippic  against  “  Cgesarism,” 
under  spasms  of  angina  pectoris.  It  was  delivered  against 
Andrew  Jackson.  De  Tocqueville  quotes  it  as  the  first 
specimen  of  the  Aunerican  press  that  met  his  eyes  on  land¬ 
ing  in  iSew  York  in  1831 :  so  the  nation  has  survived  that 
outburst  for  nearly  half  a  century. 

.  Did  ever  party-spirit  run  higher  than  at  the  first  elec¬ 
tion  of  Jackson,  and  during  his  controversy  with  the  Bank 
of  the  United  States  ?  1  et  what  does  the  present  genera¬ 
tion  know  or  care  about  it  all  ?  And  what  shall  we  say  of 
an  open  proposal  to  go  to  the  seat  of  government,  and 
drag  the  President  from  his  chair?  Did  not  such  violence 
of  party-zeal  threaten  the  overthrow  of  the  Constitution 
and  the  Union  ?  But  this  was  not  a  conspiracy  to  kidnap 
Mr.  Lincoln  in  time  of  war:  it  was  the  talk  of  “solid  men 
of  Loston  against  John  Adams;  and  the  nation  has  sur¬ 
vived  it  seventy-five  years 

In  December,  1875,  the  House  of  Representatives  passed 
a  vote  against  a  third  term  of  the  presidential  office,  —  a 
topic  that  has  been  discussed  in  the  newspapers  in  no 
measured  woids.  One  or  two  specimens  of  the  lan°'uarre 
which  the  notion  of  a  third  candidacy  has  called  forth  are 
worth  quoting  here.  “  The  President  is  totally  destitute 
of  merit,  either  as  a  soldier  or  a  statesman :  he  has 
violated  the  Constitution,  and  perverted  his  office  to  his 
private  use.”  “  The  remaining  of  no  man  in  office  is 
necessary  to  the  success  of  the  government.  The  people 
would  be  in  a  calamitous  situation  if  one  man  were  essen¬ 
tial  to  the  existence  of  the  government.  May  the  Presi¬ 
dent  be  happy  in  his  retirement !  but  let  him  retire.”  But 
this  was  said  of  G-eorge  Washington  when  he  insisted  on 

1  Democracy  in  America,  i.  233,  Bowen’s  edition. 


104  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


retiring,  and  Congress  proposed  resolutions  of  regret  at  his 
withdrawal  from  public  life,  and  of  thanks  and  admira¬ 
tion  for  his  eminent  services.1 

John  Adams  has  left  it  on  record,  that  in  1793,  when 
Genet  sought  to  coerce  the  government  into  a  league  with 
France,  “thousands  of  people  in  the  streets  of  Philadel¬ 
phia,  day  after  day,  threatened  to  drag  Washington  out  of 
liis  house,  and  effect  a  revolution  in  the  government,  or 
compel  it  to  declare  war  in  favor  of  the  French  Revolution, 
and  against  England.” 2  And  of  a  like  incident  to  himself 
he  says,  “  Ten  thousand  people,  and  perhaps  many  more, 
were  parading  the  streets  of  Philadelphia  on  the  evening 
of  my  Fast  Day,  when  even  Gov.  Mifflin  thought  it 
his  duty  to  order  a  patrol  of  horse  and  foot  to  preserve 
the  peace  ;  when  Market  Street  was  as  full  of  men  as 
could  stand  by  one  another,  and  even  before  my  door ; 
when  some  of  my  domestics,  in  frenzy,  determined  to 
sacrifice  their  lives  in  my  defence ;  when  all  were  ready  to 
make  a  desperate  sally  among  the  multitude,  and  some 
were  with  difficulty  and  danger  dragged  back  by  the 
others;  when  I  myself  judged  it  prudent  and  necessary  to 
order  chests  of  arms  from  the  War  Office  to  be  brought 
through  by  lanes  and  back-doors,  determined  to  defend 
my  house  at  the  expense  of  my  life,  and  the  lives  of  the 
few,  very  few  domestics  and  friends  within  it.  ”  3  All 
that  was  nearly  eighty  years  ago ;  and  who  fears  to-day  that 
the  National  Government  will  be  dethroned  by  a  mob? 
The  Constitution  has  long  lived  down  that  sort  of  party 
frenzy. 

Never  did  the  spirit  of  party  rage  more  furiously  than 
in  the  contest  for  the  presidency  between  Adams  and 
Jefferson.  The  latter  as  the  leader  of  the  Democracy, 
and  supposed  to  be  in  sympathy  with  French  ideas,  was 
looked  upon  by  Federalists  as  the  incarnation  of  evil. 
One  New-England  minister  refused  to  baptize  a  child 
Thomas  Jefferson,  saying  he  would  rather  call  it  Beelze¬ 
bub.  Another  lifted  up  liis  dying  head  to  say,  “  I  die  lov¬ 
ing  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  hating  the  Devil  and  Tom 
Jefferson.”  The  contest  sowed  enmity  between  those  two 

1  Irving’s  Life  of  Washington,  v.  241,  200. 

2  Letter  to  Jefferson:  Jefferson’s  Works,  vol.  vi.  155.  3  ibid. 


THE  NATION  TESTED. 


165 


noble  patriots.  But  years  after  we  find  them  solacing 
each  other  in  old  age  with  a  correspondence  of  tender 
friendship.  In  one  of  these  letters,  Jefferson  alludes  to 
that  day  of  strife  in  these  words  :  “  Here  you  and  I  sepa¬ 
rated  for  the  first  time.  .  .  .We  suffered  ourselves  to  be 
passive  subjects  of  public  discussion  ;  and  those  discus¬ 
sions,  whether  relating  to  men,  measures,  or  opinions,  were 
conducted  by  the  parties  with  an  animosity,  a  bitterness, 
and  an  indecency,  which  had  never  been  exceeded.  All 
the  resources  of  reason  and  of  wrath  were  exhausted  by 
each  party  in  support  of  its  own,  and  to  prostrate  the 
adversary  opinions.  ...  I  have  no  stomach  to  revive  the 
memory  of  that  day.  ...  No  circumstances  have  sus¬ 
pended  for  one  moment  my  sincere  esteem  for  you,  and  I 
now  salute  you  with  unchanged  affection  and  respect.”  1 
There  is  no  lasting  peril  in  parties  whose  leaders  end  in 
cuddling  one  another  for  the  tomb.  The  nation  has  sur¬ 
vived  all  the  turmoils  of  Adams  and  Jefferson,  and  can  do 
honor  to  each  without  jealousy  of  the  other.  No,  no !  it 
is  not  in  party-spirit  that  the  doom  or  disruption  of  the 
country  lies.  Parties  are  so  nearly  balanced  as  to  be 
always  a  mutual  check :  they  are  so  parcelled  out  among 
districts,  counties,  states,  and  so  restrained  by  the  elec¬ 
tive  apparatus  for  the  senate  and  the  presidency,  that 
their  majorities  in  one  quarter  may  be  neutralized  in 
another.  They  cannot  centralize;  and,  there  being  no 
army  to  be  bought  or  used,  they  cannot  terrorize.  No 
mob  can  rush  in  upon  the  government  with  shouts  of  “  Le 
decheance  /”  No  Monk  can  bring  his  hired  soldiery  to  over¬ 
awe  or  disperse  the  Parliament. 

On  the  matter  of  party-spirit  the  anxious  American 
may  re-assure  himself  from  the  experience  of  countries 
other  than  his  own.  The  German  Reichstag  is  a  creation 
of  yesterday.  Its  members  are  hardly  out  of  leading- 
strings.  But  what  scenes  of  turbulence  have  already  been 
witnessed  there  under  the  combined  assault  of  Ultramon- 
tranes  and  the  Fortschritts  party  upon  Prince  Bismarck’s 
policy  !  What  a  spectacle  is  a  party-bout  in  the  French 
Chamber  of  Deputies  !  As  to  party-spirit  in  England,  we 
have  a  telling  witness  in  Lord  Macaulay. 

1  Jefferson’s  Works,  vol.  vi.  37, 144. 


106  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

On  the  13th  September,  1831,  Macaulay  wrote  to  his  sis¬ 
ter,  “  The  aspect  of  public  affairs  is  very  menacing;  fearful, 
I  think,  beyond  what  people  in  general  imagine.  Three 
weeks,  however,  will  probably  settle  the  whole,  and  bring 
to  an  issue  the  question, — reform,  or  revolution.  One  or 
the  other  I  am  certain  that  we  must  and  shall  have.  I 
assure  you  that  the  violence  of  the  people,  the  bigotry  of 
the  lords,  and  the  stupidity  and  weakness  of  the  ministers, 
alarm  me  so  much,  that  even  my  rest  is  disturbed  by  vexa¬ 
tion  and  uneasy-  forebodings,  not  for  myself, — fori  may 
gain,  and  cannot  lose, — but  for  this  noble  country,  which 
seems  likely  to  be  ruined  without  the  miserable  consola¬ 
tion  of  being  ruined  by  great  men.  ...  I  know  the  dan¬ 
ger  from  information  more  accurate  and  certain  than,  I 
believe,  anybody  not  in  power  possesses  ;  and  I  perceive, 
what  our  men  in  power  do  not  perceive,  how  terrible  the 
danger  is.”  1 

In  1833  Macaulay  had  another  scare  about  the  Irish 
Church  Bill,  the  stubbornness  of  the  peers,  and  the  vacil¬ 
lations  of  the  king.  On  the  27th  of  June  he  wrote  again 
to  his  sister,  “  I  see  nothing  before  us  but  a  frantic  con¬ 
flict  between  extreme  opinions ;  a  short  period  of  oppres¬ 
sion,  then  a  convulsive  re-action,  and  then  a  tremendous 
crash  of  the  funds,  the  church,  the  peerage,  and  the 
throne.  It  is  enough  to  make  the  most  strenuous  royal¬ 
ist  lean  a  little  to  republicanism  to  think  that  the  whole 
question  between  safety  and  general  destruction  may 
probably,  at  this  most  fearful  conjuncture,  depend  on  a 
single  man  whom  the  accident  of  his  birth  has  placed  in  a 
situation  to  which  certainly  his  own  virtues  or  abilities 
would  never  have  raised  him.”  2 

Everybody  says  that  Macaulay  must  have  had  “  a  bee 
in  his  bonnet  ”  when  he  wrote  such  stuff  as  this.  But  its 
publication  just  now  is  timely  as  a  warning  to  other 
prophets  of  evil.  Macaulay  was  a  student  of  history,  a 
statesman  of  experience,  a  man  of  candid  judgment,  and  a 
good  knowledge  of  society  and  of  human  nature ;  yet,  in 
the  heat  of  controversy,  every  passing  political  excitement 
assumed  the  proportions  of  a  revolution,  convulsing  society, 
and  overturning  the  fundamental  order  of  the  state.  Just 

1  Life  and  Letters,  chap.  iv.  2  Ibid.,  chap.  y. 


THE  NATION  TESTED. 


167 


this  mistake  is  constantly  made  by  English  critics  of 
American  politics.  It  is  well  to  remember  that  many  an 
alarming  telegraphic  report  and  ominous  leader  in  the 
morning  journal  is  written,  as  were  these  letters  of  Macau¬ 
lay,  in  the  small  hours,  after  an  exciting  debate  and  ex¬ 
hausting  session,  when  the  tired  brain  sees  spectres  while 
the  rest  of  the  world  is  quietly  and  safely  asleep. 

What  little  there  was  of  reason  in  Macaulay’s  apprehen¬ 
sions  goes  to  show  that  party-violence  is  not  a  special  prod¬ 
uct  nor  peril  of  republican  institutions,  and  that  its 
remedy  does  not  lie  in  relapsing  to  a  monarchy  and  a 
House  of  Lords.  Macaulay,  even,  sighed  for  relief  from 
both,  and  boldly  predicted  the  exchange  of  the  House  of 
Peers  for  an  u  Upper  Chamber  on  an  elective  basis.” 1 
Mr.  Trevelyan  testifies,  that,  in  1839,  “  public  animosity 
and  personal  violence  had  risen  to  a  higher,  or,  at  any 
rate,  to  a  more  sustained  temperature  than  had  ever  been 
reached  since  the  period  when,  amidst  threats  of  impeach¬ 
ment,  and  accusations  of  treason,  perfidy,  and  corruption, 
Sir  Robert  Walpole  was  tottering  to  his  fall.” 

How  hot  the  temperature  of  that  partisan  conflict  real¬ 
ly  was,  we  know  from  Macaulay’s  journal :  44  Thursday, 
June  11,  1840.  I  went  from  the  office  to  the  House, 
which  was  engaged  upon  Stanley’s  Irish  Registration  Bill. 
The  night  was  very  stormy.  I  have  never  seen  such  un¬ 
seemly  demeanor,  or  heard  such  scurrilous  language,  in 
Parliament.  Lord  Norreys  was  whistling,  and  making  all 
sorts  of  noises.  Lord  Maidstone  was  so  ill-mannered,  that 
I  hope  he  was  drunk.  At  last,  after  much  grossly  inde¬ 
cent  conduct,  at  which  Lord  Eliot  expressed  his  disgust 
to  me,  a  furious  outbreak  took  place.  O’Connell  was  so 
rudely  interrupted,  that  he  used  the  expression,  4  beastly 
bello wings.’  Then  rose  such  an  uproar  as  no  O.  P.  mob  at 
Covent-Garden  Theatre,  no  crowd  of  Chartists  in  front  of 
a  hustings,  ever  equalled.  Men  on  both  sides  stood  up, 
shook  their  fists,  and  bawled  at  the  top  of  their  voices. 
Freshfield,  who  was  in  the  chair,  was  strangely  out  of  his 
element.  Indeed,  he  knew  his  business  so  little,  that, 
when  first  he  had  to  put  a  question,  he  fancied  himself  at 
Exeter  Hall,  or  the  Crown  and  Anchor,  and  said,  4  As 

1  Life  and  Letters,  cliap.  viii. 


168  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

many  as  are  of  that  opinion,  please  to  signify  the  same  by 
holding  up  their  hands.’  He  was  quite  unable  to  keep  the 
smallest  order  when  the  storm  came.  O’Connell  raged  like 
a  mad  bull;  and  our  people,  I  for  one,  while  regretting  and 
condemning  his  violence,  thought  it  much  extenuated  by 
the  provocation.  .  .  .  At  last  the  tumult  ended  from 
absolute  physical  weariness.  It  was  past  one ;  and  the 
steady  bellowers  of  the  opposition  had  been  howling  from 
six  o’clock  with  little  interruption.”  1  Never  was  there  a 
more  disgraceful  scene  in  the  American  Congress  than  this 
“bear-garden  ”  performance  of  British  aristocracy  and  con¬ 
servatism.  Yet  the  British  Constitution  survived  it ;  and 
he  would  be  a  sorry  critic  who  should  judge  the  institu¬ 
tions  and  the  people  of  Great  Britain  by  such  an  outbreak 
of  party- violence.  At  that  day,  “  The  London  Times  ”  was 
as  vituperative  and  personal  as  was  “  The  New-York  Her¬ 
ald  ”  of  the  same  period.  Macaulay  was  then  the  foremost 
of  English  essayists,  the  most  brilliant  of  parliamentary 
orators ;  yet  “  The  Times,”  in  its  leading  articles,  styled 
him  “  Mr.  Babble-tongue  Macaulay,”  an  epithet,  which,  like 
Thackeray’s  “  Bight  Honorable  T.  B.  Maconkey,”  marks 
an  average  level  of  English  journalistic  humor.  And, 
when  Macaulay  and  Sheil  were  sworn  of  the  privy  coun¬ 
cil,  “The  Times”  exclaimed,  “These  men  privy  council¬ 
lors  !  These  men  petted  at  Windsor  Castle !  Faugh ! 
Why,  they  are  hardly  fit  to  fill  up  the  vacancies  that  have 
occurred  by  the  lamented  death  of  her  Majesty’s  two  fa¬ 
vorite  monkeys.”  2 

This  was  no  exceptional  instance.  Such  political  ameni¬ 
ties  were  too  much  the  manner  of  that  time.  On  the  1st 
of  October,  1882,  Mr.  Disraeli  issued  an  address  to  the 
electors  of  Wycombe,  in  which  he  characterized  the  min¬ 
istry  in  the  following  terms  :  — 

“  And  now  I  call  upon  every  man  who  values  the  independence  of 
our  borough,  upon  every  man  who  desires  the  good  government  of 
this  once  great  and  happy  country,  to  support  me  in  this  struggle 
against  that  rapacious,  tyrannical,  and  incapable  faction,  who,  having 
knavishly  obtained  power  by  false  pretences,  sillily  suppose  that  they 
will  be  permitted  to  retain  it  by  half-measures,  and  who,  in  the 
course  of  their  brief  but  disastrous  career,  have  contrived  to  shake 
every  great  interest  of  the  empire  to  its  centre.” 

1  Life  and  Letters  of  Macaulay,  chap.  viii. 


2  Ibid. 


THE  NATION  TESTED. 


169 


If  this  might  he  pardoned  to  the  ambitious  rhetoric  of 
a  young  politician,  what  shall  be  said  of  the  following 
extract  from  a  letter  of  Mr.  Disraeli  in  reply  to  u  The 
Globe,”  published  in  “  The  Times  ”  of  the  9th  of  January, 
1836?  — 

“  Like  the  man  who  left  off  fighting  because  he  could  not  keep  his 
wife  from  supper,  the  editor  of  ‘  The  Globe’  has  been  pleased  to  say 
that  he  is  disinclined  to  continue  this  controversy  because  it  gratifies 
my  ‘passion  for  notoriety.’  The  editor  of  ‘  The  Globe  ’  must  have  a 
more  contracted  mind  and  a  paltrier  spirit  than  even  I  imagined,  if 
he  can  suppose  for  a  moment  that  an  ignoble  controversy  with  an 
obscure  animal  like  himself  can  gratify  the  passion  for  notoriety  of  one 
whose  works  at  least  have  been  translated  into  the  languages  of  pol¬ 
ished  Europe,  and  circulate  by  thousands  in  the  New  W orld.  It  is  not, 
then,  my  passion  for  notoriety  that  has  induced  me  to  tweak  the  editor 
of  ‘  The  Globe  ’  by  the  nose,  and  to  inflict  sundry  kicks  upon  the  baser 
part  of  his  base  body  ;  to  make  him  eat  dirt,  and  his  own  words,  fouler 
than  anv  filth  ;  but  because  I  wished  to  show  to  the  world  what  a  mis¬ 
erable  poltroon,  what  a  craven  dullard,  what  a  literary  scarecrow,  what 
a  mere  thing  stuffed  with  straw  and  rubbish,  is  the  soi-discint  diiector 
of  public  opinion,  and  official  organ  of  Whig  politics.”  1 

If  a  man  addicted  to  sucb  language  could  rise  to  tlie 
highest  honors  of  statesmanship  that  the  British  Empire 
has  to  offer,  there  may  be  hope  yet  for  Dr.  Kenealy.  It 
does  not  matter  that  all  this  was  forty  years  ago.  I  grant 
that  English  manners  have  improved;  but  my  point  is, 
that  political  blackguardism  is  not  a  peculiarity  of  democ¬ 
racy,  and  that  the  remedy  for  this  scandal  of  free  society 
does  not  lie  in  creating  peers.  Party-spirit,  with  even 
violent  indecencies  of  parliament  and  press,  is  not  a  spe¬ 
cial  product  nor  a  special  peril  of  republican  institutions. 
Liberty,  indeed,  may  give  exceptional  facilities  to  the  spirit 
of  party ;  but  we  do  well  to  keep  in  mind  the  words 
spoken  by  John  Adams  on  the  eve  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  :  “  I  do  not  expect  that  our  new  government 
will  be  so  quiet  as  I  could  wish,  nor  that  happy  harmony, 
confidence,  and  affection  between  the  Colonies,  that  every 
good  American  ought  to  study,  labor,  and  pray  for,  for  a 
long  time.  But  freedom  is  a  counterbalance  for  poverty, 
discord,  and  war,  and  more.”  2 

1  For  more  in  this  style,  see  Gentleman’s  Magazine  for  December,  1876, 

on  Lord  Beaconsfteld. 

2  See  note  at  close  of  Lecture. 


170  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

This  spectre  of  party  being  laid,  we  are  threatened  with 
the  ghost  of  sectionalism,  which  already,  in  the  time  of 
Washington,  began  to  stalk  abroad  as  another  guise  of 
party-spirit.  He  regarded  it  “as  matter  of  serious  con¬ 
cern  that  any  ground  should  have  been  furnished  for 
characterizing  parties  by  geographical  discriminations, — 
Northern  and  Southern ,  Atlantic  and  Western;  ”  and  the 
“  Farewell  Address  ”  contains  an  elaborate  argument  upon 
the  community  of  interest  of  all  sections  of  the  country, 
their  commercial  and  political  interdependence,  and  the 
value  c£  the  Union  to  all  alike. 

In  forming  the  Union,  there  were  jealousies  between 
New  England  and  the  South,  which,  however,  yielded  to 
the  common  necessity.  At  the  moment  when  Washington 
entered  upon  his  presidency,  emissaries  of  Great  Britain 
and  of  Spain  were  intriguing  with  political  leaders  at  the 
West  to  detach  the  Western  territory  from  the  Union,  and 
establish  a  separate  government  in  the  valley  of  the  Mis¬ 
sissippi.  This  project  caused  no  little  uneasiness  until  the 
treaties  with  Great  Britain  and  with  Spain  satisfied  the 
people  of  the  West  that  the  General  Government  and 
the  Atlantic  States  were  in  no  wise  unfriendly  to  their 
interests,  and  had  secured  to  them  all  the  rights  of  navi¬ 
gation  they  could  desire.  At  the  beginning  of  the  cen¬ 
tury,  Aaron  Burr  was  accused  of  the  treasonable  design 
of  forming  a  distinct  empire,  to  be  composed  of  Western 
States  and  a  portion  of  Mexico  :  but  the  scheme,  whatever 
it  was,  failed  ignominiously ;  and  the  purchase  of  Louisi¬ 
ana  soon  after  bound  the  East,  the  W est,  and  the  South  in 
a  common  destiny.  From  that  day,  the  West  has  had  her 
own  outlet  for  her  granaries  to  the  markets  of  the  world ; 
yet  canals  and  railways  have  made  Boston,  New  York, 
Philadelphia,  Baltimore,  more  necessary  and  valuable  to 
her  as  marts  for  her  produce  than  the  Mississippi  and  New 
Orleans  that  she  once  coveted  for  her  exclusive  possession. 
The  Hartford  Convention,  in  opposition  to  the  war  of 
1812, 1  cannot  fairly  be  called  a  sectional  movement:  it 
wras  a  combined  peace-and-party  demonstration,  that  soon 
died  of  inanition,  and  in  its  death  involved  the  political 
hopes  of  most  of  its  members  and  supporters.  Historians 

1  Tlie  convention  met  in  December,  1814. 


THE  NATION  TESTED. 


171 


will  agree  that  the  convention  was  a  mistake  as  a  mode 
of  political  agitation,  and  that  the  time  of  holding  it  was 
inopportune.  In  the  midst  of  a  war  which  had  never  been 
popular,  and  was  still  of  doubtful  issue,  the  convention 
put  forth  a  statement  of  the  grievances  of  a  portion  of 
the  country  because  of  the  war,  and  proposed  certain 
changes  in  the  Constitution.  But  the  convention  never 
approached  the  idea  of  separating  New  England  from  the 
Union.  Mr.  Webster,  who  knew  well  the  motives  and 
aims  of  the  old  Federalist  party,  and  had  studied  this 
question  with  his  usual  care,  in  his  speech  in  the  Senate, 
in  reply  to  Mr.  Hayne  of  South  Carolina,1  said,  “  There 
never  was  a  time,  under  any  degree  of  excitement,  in 
which  the  Hartford  Convention,  or  any  other  convention, 
could  have  maintained  itself  one  moment  in  New  England, 
if  assembled  for  any  such  purpose  as  breaking  up  the 
Union  because  they  thought  unconstitutional  laws  had 
been  passed,  or  to  consult  on  that  subject,  or  to  calculate 
the  value  of  the  Union.” 

Just  after  the  Hartford  Convention,  Jefferson  wrote  to 
Lafayette,  “  They  have  not  been  able  to  make  themselves 
even  a  subject  of  conversation,  either  of  public  or  private 
societies.  .  .  .  The  yeomanry  of  the  United  States  are  not 
the  canaille  of  Paris.  .  .  .  The  cement  of  this  Union  is  in 
the  heart-blood  of  every  American.  I  do  not  believe  there 
is  on  earth  a  government  established  on  so  immovable  a 
basis.  Let  them,  in  any  State,  even  in  Massachusetts 
itself,  raise  the  standard  of  separation,  and  its  citizens  will 
rise  in  mass,  and  do  justice  themselves  on  their  own  incen¬ 
diaries.'’  2 

Nothing  in  the  geographical  position  nor  in  the  histori¬ 
cal  antecedents  of  any  portion  of  the  United  States,  nor 
any  occasional  grievance  or  injustice  inflicted  on  a'  part  by 
the  whole,  could  provoke  sectionalism  to  a  degree  that 
might  threaten  the  disruption  of  the  Union.  As  a  rule, 
party-lines  would  overrun  and  divide  all  sectional  barriers, 
and  specific  grievances  would  be  met  by  political  agitation 
and  party  combination  and  change.  Sectionalism  could 
become  a  power  only  when  a  section  should  have  some  cher- 

1  Jan.  26,  1830.  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  315. 

2  Jefferson’s  Works,  vol  vi.  pp.  425,  426. 


172  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

islied  interest  of  its  own,  apart  from,  and  perhaps  alien  to, 
the  interest  of  the  nation,  and  should  set  this  local  concern 
above  all  distinctions  of  party  and  all  benefits  of  organic 
union.  For  a  long  period,  the  peril  of  sectionalism  from 
such  a  cause  was  serious,  and  at  times  alarming,  —  a  sec¬ 
tionalism  not  defined  by  physical  geography,  nor  degrees  of 
latitude,  but  by  the  surveyor's  line  of  Mason  and  Dixon, 
and  social  institutions  contrasted  by  that  artificial  bound¬ 
ary.  This  peril,  which  had  aroused  the  country  in  1820, 
and  was  then  seemingly  averted  by  the  Missouri  Com¬ 
promise,1  took  on  the  positive  and  formidable  aspect  of 
nullification  in  1832,  when  a  convention  of  South  Carolina 
resolved  to  resist  the  collection  of  duties  by  the  United- 
States  Government,  and,  should  their  collection  be  en¬ 
forced,  to  withdraw  from  the  Union,  and  organize  a  sepa¬ 
rate  government.  The  champion  of  nullification  was  one 
of  the  most  sincere,  upright,  and  able  statesmen  the  coun¬ 
try  has  produced,  —  a  man  who,  given  his  premises,  would 
hold  you  as  in  a  vice  by  the  relentless  screw  of  his  logic. 
No  American  can  fail  to  accord  to  John  C.  Calhoun  the 
respect  due  to  the  highest  order  of  intellect  and  to  perfect 
sincerity  of  character;  but  when  he  assumed  the  false 
premise,  that  the  Constitution  was  not  the  fundamental 
and  inalienable  law  of  the  nation,  but  a  voidable  compact 
of  sovereign  States,  then  the  very  strength  of  his  logic, 
and  the  downright  earnestness  and  sincerity  of  his  charac¬ 
ter,  drove  him  on  to  destroy  the  Union  for  what  he  believed 
to  be  the  right  of  his  State.  The  first  stand  was  made  at 
the  tariff ;  but  this  point  was  too  weak  to  be  tenable ; 
and  the  strong  reasoning  and  burning  eloquence  of  Web¬ 
ster  in  the  Senate,  the  soldierly  decision  of  Jackson  in  the 
presidency,  and  the  spontaneous  uprising  of  the  people, 
put  down  nullification  with  the  watchword,  “ The  Union , 
it  must ,  it  shall ,  be  preserved .”  In  truth,  with  the  ever- 
changing  phases  of  agriculture,  manufactures,  and  com¬ 
merce,  and  the  mobility  of  political  parties  upon  economi¬ 
cal  questions,  a  tariff  act  of  a  single  Congress  could  hardly 
form  the  nucleus  of  a  sectional  contest  against  the  General 

1  By  this  compromise,  Missouri  was  admitted  into  the  Union  as  a  slave 
State,  on  the  pledge  that  slavery  should  he  thereafter  prohibited  in  new 
States  north  of  36°  3(y  north  latitude. 


THE  NATION  TESTED. 


173 


Government.  Calhoun  had  the  honesty  to  avoAv  that  the 
prime  importance  of  his  doctrine  of  State-rights  and 
secession  lay  in  the  preservation  of  slavery :  and  that  was 
an  interest  which  the  South  had  in  common,  to  the  exclu¬ 
sion  of  the  rest  of  the  Union,  —  an  interest  that  entered 
into  the  whole  constitution  of  society,  domestic,  industrial, 
political;  into  the  personal  habits  of  the  people,  their  local 
laws,  their  ties  of  property,  marriage,  and  inheritance. 
To  the  protection  of  this  system  Mr.  Calhoun  brought  his 
doctrines  of  State-rights  and  secession,  and  devoted  the 
strength  and  energy  of  his  remarkable  powers  through 
the  long  period  of  his  public  career.  I  respect  Mr.  Cal¬ 
houn  none  the  less,  that,  in  the  circumstances  of  his 
training,  he  was  a  slaveholder ;  and  none  the  less  that  he 
maintained  with  such  manful  persistency  that  state  of 
society  with  which  his  own  life  was  involved.  lie  had 
the  courage  to  say  in  the  Senate,  that  the  doctrine  of 
human  equality  and  liberty  proclaimed  by  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  was  a  grave  political  error ; 1  and  that  “  the 
laws  of  the  slaveholding  States  for  the  protection  of  their 
domestic  institutions  are  paramount  to  the  laws  of  the 
General  Government  in  regulation  of  commerce  and  the 
mail ;  that  the  latter  must  yield  to  the  former  in  the  event 
of  conflict ;  and  that,  if  the  government  should  refuse  to 
yield,  the  States  have  a  right  to  interpose.”  2  This  deter¬ 
mination  to  renounce  the  Union,  rather  than  suffer  slavery 
to  be  restricted,  meddled  with,  or  even  discussed,  was 
largely  the  burden  of  Calhoun’s  speeches  for  twenty  years. 
He  was  honest,  and  I  respect  him  for  that ;  he  was  consist¬ 
ent,  and  I  respect  him  for  that ;  he  wTas  courageous,  and 
I  respect  him  for  that ;  just  as  I  respect  Pius  IX.  for  say¬ 
ing  “  Non  possumus  ”  to  every  proposal  that  he  “  should 
reconcile  himself  to  progress,  liberalism,  and  civilization, 
as  lately  introduced.”  I  find  in  Mr.  Calhoun  no  tokens 
of  political  envy,  of  disappointed  ambition,  or  of  mean 
demagogism ;  but  his  system  made  him  sectional,  dwarfed 
his  vision  from  the  grand  scope  of  nationality,  freedom, 
humanity,  for  which  such  powers  as  his  were  given,  and 

1  Speech  on  the  Oregon  Bill,  June  27,  1848:  Works,  iv.  500. 

2  Speech  on  Suppressing  Incendiary  Publications,  April  12,  1836,  vol.  ii. 
532,  533. 


174  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

concentrated  it  upon  one  interest  of  his  one  State,  —  “  There 
is  my  family  and  connections ;  there  I  drew  my  first  breath ; 
there  are  all  my  hopes.”  1 

The  South  was  never  sectional  upon  geographical  or 
political  grounds.  Slavery,  an  heirloom  of  the  civiliza¬ 
tion  that  preceded  the  era  of  independence,  fostered  by 
her  climate  and  intwined  with  her  growth,  made  economi¬ 
cally  valuable  through  the  invention  of  the  cotton-gin, 
made  politically  important  through  the  three-fifths  rule 
of  apportionment  and  the  expansion  of  territory,  —  this 
gave  to  the  South  a  community  of  interest  in  and  for  her¬ 
self  separate  from  the  general  interests  of  the  country, 
and  made  her  a  unit  whenever  that  interest  was  endan¬ 
gered.  It  is  but  just  to  the  patriotism  of  the  South  to  say 
'  that  slavery  alone  made  her  sectional,  intensified  her  faith 
in  State-rights,  and  drove  her  into  the  fallacy  of  seces¬ 
sion.  The  war  of  sectionalism  was  fought  out  grandly 
in  the  arena  of  argument,  was  fought  out  bravely  on  the 
field  of  battle  ;  and  slavery,  the  cause  of  sectionalism,  fell. 
What  now  remains  ?  Hostile  sections,  imbittered  by  war, 
biding  their  time  for  a  new  struggle  for  ascendency?  Let 
the  reception  given  to  the  soldiers  of  Virginia  and  South 
Carolina  at  the  celebration  of  Bunker  Hill  in  June,  18T5, 
answer.  Let  the  late  Vice-President  of  the  Southern 
Confederacy  answer.  In  his  speech  at  Atlanta,  July  4, 
1875,  Mr.  Alexander  H.  Stephens  said,  “  The  grand  dem¬ 
onstrations  in  honor  of  the  hundredth  anniversary  of  the 
destruction  of  tea  at  Boston  and  Baltimore,  of  the  battles 
of  Concord,  Lexington,  and  Bunker  Hill,  and  of  the 
Mecklenburg  Declaration,  which  have  brought  the  differ¬ 
ent  sections  into  more  harmonious  accord,  are  but  a  prel¬ 
ude  to  the  celebration  of  the  anniversary  of  the  Declara¬ 
tion  which  is  to  come  off  next  year  in  Philadelphia.  .  .  . 
The  great  cause  of  strife  being  now  removed  forever ,  why 
cannot  all  true  friends  of  constitutional  liberty  cordially 
unite  in  the  future  for  the  perpetuation  of  the  principles 
set  forth  in  the  common  Declaration  of  Independence  ? 
I  insist  that  we  of  the  South  shall  never,  from  any  cause, 
lose  our  full  share  of  the  glories  of  the  ever-memorable 
4th  of  July,  1776.”  And  once  more  :  let  Gov.  Kemper 

1  Speech  of  Feb.  19,  1847:  Works,  iv.  347. 


THE  HATIOH  TESTED. 


175 


of  Virginia  answer,  whose  message  of  Dec.  1,  1875,  advo¬ 
cates  the  Centennial  Exhibition  at  Philadelphia  in  these 
patriotic  and  eloquent  words  :  “  The  people  of  Virginia 
yielded  as  brave  men  to  the  verdict  of  war ;  and,  giving 
their  parole  of  honor  to  be  thenceforward  faithful  citizens 
of  a  re-united  common  country,  they  at  once  and  cheer¬ 
fully  accepted  the  results  of  emancipation,  as  well  as  the 
arbitrament  which  ended  the  question  of  peaceable  secession 
forever ,  and  made  the  Union  constitutionally  indissoluble . 
.  .  .  The  United  States  is  our  country;  and  it  is  des¬ 
tined  to  be  the  only  country  for  ourselves  and  our  chil¬ 
dren  forever.  ...  It  were  suicidal  in  us  to  hold  back 
from  any  effort  which  can  conduce  to  the  common  welfare. 
.  .  .  Let  not  Virginia  stand  aloof  from  this  gathering 
of  her  sister  States  on  the  spot  which  gave  birth  to  free 
government,  and  where  her  illustrious  sons,  a  hundred 
years  ago,  took  so  grand  a  part  in  rearing  the  pillars  of 
American  liberty.  Let  her  stand  there,  hand  in  hand  with 
her  sister  States,  around  the  hallowed  spot,  and,  uniting 
with  them,  give  her  potent  aid  in  laying  deep  and  strong 
the  foundations  of  a  reconstructed  Union,  made  perpetual 
by  good-will,  equal  laws,  equal  rights,  and  equal  liberties 
for  all.” 

Since  sectionalism  as  between  the  North  and  the  South 
was  abnormal,  and  the  cause  of  that  old  unnatural  strife 
is  forever  removed,  where  shall  one  find  on  the  map  of 
the  United  States,  geographical  or  political,  a  basis  or 
suggestion  of  sectional  division  ?  Nature  has  provided  no 
line  of  territorial  division  from  east  to  west.  No  Alps 
there  lift  their  everlasting  barriers;  no  Mississippi  rolls 
eastward  from  the  Rocky  Mountains  to  the  Alantic  coast. 
The  basin  of  the  Mississippi,  notwithstanding  its  enor¬ 
mous  dimensions,  is  marked  by  Nature  for  the  home  of  a 
people  having  community  of  interests,  and  identity  of 
aims.  From  the  westward  watershed  of  Pennsylvania  to 
the  eastward  watershed  of  Colorado,  the  central  river 
drains  into  itself  the  entire  circulation  of  the  basin;  and 
the  farmers  and  miners  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Iowa, 
Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Dakota,  Montana,  Wyoming,  Ne¬ 
braska,  Colorado,  Kansas,  have  a  property  in  the  free  out¬ 
let  of  the  Mississippi  as  vital  as  the  planters  and  graziers 


176  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMEBIC  AN  INDEPENDENCE. 

of  Arkansas  and  the  merchants  of  St.  Louis  and  New 
Orleans.  As  to  the  East  and  the  West,  nowhere  does  the 
Appalachian  range  rise  to  such  a  height,  nor  in  a  line  so 
bold,  as  to  form  a  sharply-defined  barrier ;  and  its  own 
streams  and  passes  have  long  been  utilized  for  canals  and 
railways  binding  the  Mississippi  basin  to  the  Atlantic 
slope. 

The  Rocky  Mountains  might  indeed  serve  for  a  physi¬ 
cal  boundary  between  separate  nations ;  but  the  material 
products  and  wants  of  the  regions  upon  either  side  require 
that  these  should  supplement  each  other,  and  this  natural 
interdependence  of  the  parts  argues  the  predestined  unity 
of  the  whole.  Though  California  and  Oregon  possess 
magnificent  harbors  of  their  own,  lying  open  to  the  com¬ 
merce  of  Japan,  China,  and  the  Indies,  the  railway  has 
subsidized  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans  to  combine  the 
traffic  of  New  York  and  San  Francisco  for  the  enrichment 
of  both.  How  much  of  the  bullion  of  the  Pacific  coast 
finds  its  way  into  the  exchange  of  the  world  through  the 
commerce  of  the  Atlantic  coast !  The  streams  of  New 
England  turn  the  seven  million  spindles  that  weave  the 
cotton  of  the  South  and  the  wool  of  the  West;  and  even 
the  granite  and  ice  of  her  inhospitable  climate  provide  for 
the  wants  and  comforts  of  New  Orleans  and  Mobile.  The 
cotton  and  sugar  crops  of  the  South,  in  •  turn,  find  vent 
largely  through  the  markets  and  ports  of  the  North;  while 
the  vast  grain,  pork,  and  beef  supplies  of  the  basin  of  the 
Mississippi,  which  would  impoverish  the  country  through 
an  embarras  de  richesses  were  not  the  glut  relieved  by 
eastern  outlets,  find  a  ready  exchange  for  the  fish  and 
manufactures  of  the  Atlantic  slope,  and  for  the  imports 
of  its  world-wide  commerce.  Thus  the  varieties  of  soil, 
climate,  and  production,  in  ceaseless  exchange,  the  more 
than  three  million  tonnage  employed  yearly  in  the  coast¬ 
ing  trade,  the  fifty  thousand  miles  of  railway  and  sixty 
thousand  of  telegraph-wires  traversing  the  continent, 
show  how  close  and  constant,  how  universal  and  minute, 
is  the  industrial  circulation  of  the  national  life ;  the  vast 
trains  of  freight-wagons  on  the  Pacific  Railway,  marked 
“  New  York,  Chicago,  San  Francisco,”  denote  the  unity 
of  interests  in  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  slopes  and  the 


THE  NATION  TESTED. 


177 


Mississippi  basin ;  the  trend  of  the  two  great  coasts  points 
to  the  unity  of  a  nation  that  should  possess  the  northern 
continent;  and,  while  the  physical  conformation  of  the 
country  protests  against  disruption,  the  principle  of  local 
self-government  is  the  efficient  counterpoise  to  centraliza¬ 
tion  :  Unitas  in  Ubertate  et  libertas  in  imitate . 

This  last  sentence  anticipates  and  refutes  another 
prophecy  of  danger  to  the  American  Union.  It  is  pro¬ 
nounced  impossible  that  a  republican  government  should 
maintain  its  unity  over  so  vast  a  territory  and  such  a  mul¬ 
titudinous  population  as  will  occupy  that  territory  in  the 
next  hundred  years.  History  warns  us  of  the  perils  of  / 
territorial  expansion  to  the  organic  unity  of  the  State. 
Of  the  attempt  of  Rome  to  rule  the  Romano-Hellenic 
world,  stretching  from  the  Tagus  and  the  Bagradas  to  the 
Nile  and  the  Euphrates,  Mommsen  observes,  “  The  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  world,  difficult  in  the  attainment,  was  still 
more  difficult  in  the  preservation  :  the  Roman  Senate  had 
mastered  the  former  task ;  but  it  broke  down  under  the 
latter.”  1  And  it  was  true  also  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
that  the  weight  of  the  branches  broke  the  tree.  Other* 
empires  of  conquest  have  followed  the  same  fate,  and  we 
are  witnesses  to-day  of  the  impending  dissolution  of  the 
Turkish  Empire.  During  the  Mexican  war,  Mr.  Webster, 
in  the  Senate,  said,  “  I  am  against  all  accessions  of  terri¬ 
tory  to  form  new  States ;  ”  2  and  pointed  out  the  dangers 
of  annexation  to  the  Constitution  and  the  Union.  But  y 
the  dangers  he  apprehended  are  over.  Westward  we  have 
reached  the  Pacific:  we  have  no  hankering  for  Canada, 
and  she  no  yearning  toward  us :  in  the  death  of  slavery 
expired  the  desire  of  annexing  Mexico  and  Cuba:  the 
suggestion  of  ah  interference  by  the  United-States  Govern¬ 
ment  in  the  affairs  of  either  excites  no  popular  enthusi¬ 
asm;  and  no  party  could  ride  into  power  to-day  by  a 
wTar-cry  of  annexation  or  “manifest  destiny.” 

If  there  is  danger  to  the  Union  from  extent  of  territory,  • 
and  increase  of  population,  this  is  a  danger  that  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  United  States  shares  with  most  of  the 
great  nations  of  the  future,  —  Russia  with  her  almost 


v 


1  History  of  Rome,  "book  iv.  chap.  1. 

2  Speech  of  2d  February,  1848:  Works,  vol.  v.  280. 


178  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

yearly  accessions  of  territory  in  Asia ;  Germany  with  her 
union  of  kingdoms  and  duchies,  and  her  annexation  of 
Posen,  Schleswig-Holstein,  and  Elsass-Lotliringen ;  Eng¬ 
land  with  her  vast  colonies  and  dependencies,  and  yet 
possible  conquests  and  protectorates ;  Austria  "with  her 
mixed  empire,  and  the  tempting  provinces  of  the  Danube. 
In  a  word,  the  modern  doctrine  of  nationality  favors  the 
assimilation  of  all  the  elements  of  a  people  race,  lan¬ 
guage,  territory  —  under  common  political  institutions. 
Hence,  when  European  critics  prophesy  danger  to  the 
Union  from  extent  of  territory,  and  growth  of  numbers, 
we  answer,  Look  at  home  for  the  solution  of  this  com¬ 
mon  problem,  and,  if  you  please,  common  peril,  of  nation¬ 
ality.  The  United  States  have  in  this  problem  fewer 
elements  of  danger  than  has  any  other  great  and  growing 
people.  Their  accessions  of  territory  have  not  brought 
with  them  a  population  alien  in  race,  language,  manners, 
religion,  to  be  held  as  a  subject  people,  or  transformed  by 
the  slow  processes  of  time.  The  acquisition  of  Mexico  or 
Cuba,  to  be  sure,  admitting  to  political  equality  whole 
communities,  provinces,  people,  so  utterly  foreign  to  the 
spirit  and  ideas  of  the  nation,  would  be  fraught  with 
dangers  both  to  liberty  and  union.  Such  wholesale  an¬ 
nexation  would  be  quite  another  test  of  vitality  than  the 
gradual  absorption  of  immigrants,  though  these, .  in  the 
end,  might  count  by  the  million.  But  our  acquisitions, 
even  by  conquest,  have  been  of  wild  lands,  or  of  territory 
sparsely  occupied,  never  of  provinces  teeming  with  a  for¬ 
eign  and  hostile  people  ;  and  I  have  shown  already  that 
the  common  sense  and  the  moral  sense  of  the  American 
people  are  set  against  buying  or  bullying  the  Mexican  and 
the  Cuban  into  American  citizenship.  We  have  not  enough 
of  philanthropy  for  our  distracted  neighbors,  nor  enough 
of  ambition  for  the  spread  of  liberty,  to  peril  the  whole 
future  of  free  institutions  by  such  conquests,  whether  of 
policy  or  of  arms ;  and  since  the  old  spring  ot  filibuster¬ 
ing  is  broken,  and  its  motive  gone,  we  are  not  selfish  nor 
unscrupulous  enough  to  spoil  our  neighbor  because  he  is 
weak  and  his  weakness  makes  him  troublesome.  The 
American  Republic  has  little  to  fear  from  that  sort  of  ex¬ 
pansion  that  brought  ruin  to  Rome. 


THE  NATIOH  TESTED. 


1T9 


Hence,  also,  the  United  States  is  freed  from  the  perilous 
necessity  of  governing  annexed  provinces  by  the  sword. 
Needful  as  a  standing  army  may  be  for  protection  and 
defence,  needful  at  times  even  for  the  nursing  of  liberty 
itself,  all  history  shows  that  it  may  become  a  menace  to 
the  freedom  of  the  people,  or,  what  is  worse,  accustom 
them  to  a  rule  of  iron.  Vast  as  is  our  territory,  and*/ 
multitudinous  our  population,  we  are  free  from  the  per¬ 
plexity  of  conquered  provinces  of  unsympathetic  races, 
and  from  the  necessity  of  military  government. 

The  secret  of  the  stability  of  the  Union  under  the  strain 
of  territorial  expansion  was  discerned  by  Washington,  and 
set  forth  in  Ins  Farewell  Address :  “  Is  there  a  doubt  A 
whether  a  common  government  can  embrace  so  large  a 
sphere?  Let  experience  solve  it.  To  listen  to  mere 
speculation  in  such  a  case  were  criminal.  We  are  author¬ 
ized  to  hope  that  a  proper  organization  of  the  whole,  with 
the  auxiliary  agency  of  governments  for  the  respective 
subdivisions,  will  afford  a  happy  issue  to  the  experiment. 
’Tis  well  worth  a  fair  and  full  experiment.”  At  that  time 
the  sixteen  States  of  the  Union  possessed  a  territory  of 
827,844  square  miles,  being  nearly  seven  times  as  large  as 
Prussia  then  was  (in  1797)  ;  but,  since  the  retirement  of 
Washington,  the  territory  of  the  United  States  has  been 
quadrupled.  The  purchase  of  Louisiana  added  1,171,931 
square  miles ;  Texas  and  the  Mexican  cessions,  968,481 
square  miles ;  Alaska,  577,390  square  miles ;  and  these, 
with  Oregon  and  Florida,  have  enlarged  the  area  of  the 
Union  to  3,603,884  square  miles,  —  more  than  four  times 
that  of  1797,  and  seventeen  times  the  area  of  the  present 
German  Empire.  The  fair  and  full  experiment  of  a  com¬ 
mon  government  over  so  large  a  sphere  has  come  to  an 
issue  happy  beyond  the  sanguine  yet  serious  hope  of 
Washington.  The  reason  is,  that,  in  the  United  States  A 
we  do  not  establish  government  from  above,  but  build  it 
from  beneath.  With  each  advance  of  population  go  the 
institutions  of  local  government.  In  all  their  local  con¬ 
cerns,  the  people  care  for  themselves;  and  then  they 
adhere  by  instinct  to  that  great  national  organism  that 
gives  them  in  their  very  infancy  the  strength  and  protec¬ 
tion  of  the  full-grown  nation.  The  border-line  of  the 


180  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

march,  of  occupation  may,  for  a  time,  be  possessed  by  the 
lowest  elements  of  society,  and  marked  by  lawlessness  and 
ruffianism ;  but  how  soon  does  civilization  overtake  and 
efface  it  all !  I  have  been  in  a  border  settlement  where  I 
feared  to  sleep  amid  the  horde  of  villains  around  me  :  ten 
years  later  I  have  found  on  that  spot  a  town,  with  schools, 
churches,  houses,  looking  as  peaceful  as  if  they  had  stood 
a  century  ;  while  bar-room  ruffianism  skulked  out  of  sight. 
That  is  American  civilization,  that  follows  every  footstep 
of  adventure  or  of  gain  with  the  teacher  and  the  preacher, 
and  makes  the  Indian  wild  and  the  pioneer’s  clearing 
blossom  as  the  rose.  No  page  of  history  presents  a  record 
of  more  silent,  patient  heroism,  or  more  self-sacrificing 
patriotism,  than  the  all  unwritten,  unpublished  lives  of 
the  teachers  and  missionaries  of  the  West.  Yes,  it  is  and 
shall  forever  be  possible  for  the  Union  to  hold  together, 
based  everywhere  upon  the  same  institutions  of  liberty 
and  light,  of  order  and  love.1 

Quite  germane  to  the  question  of  territory  is  that  of 
immigration  as  affecting  the  unity  and  permanence  of  the 
people  of  the  United  States.  I  count  it  the  social  and 
political  marvel  of  the  century  that  the  native- American 
stock  has  absorbed  such  vast  promiscuous  hordes  of 
foreigners,  with  so  little  detriment  to  itself  and  its  institu¬ 
tions.  History  gives  examples  of  the  migration  of  tribes 
and  peoples  for  the  occupation  of  new  territories  by  settle¬ 
ment  or  conquest ;  but  there  is  no  precedent  for  a  nation 
receiving  into  its  bosom  millions  of  foreigners  as  equal 
sharers  in  its  political  rights  and  powers.  With  a  mag¬ 
nanimity  almost  reckless,  the  United  States  have  done 
this,  and  have  survived.  Immigration  first  assumed  pro¬ 
portions  worthy  of  note  in  the  decade  from  1830  to  1840, 
when  it  reached  the  figure  of  599,000.  In  the  decade 
from  1840  to  1850,  it  increased  to  1,713,000;  and  the 
report  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  for  1874  gives  for  the 
ten  calendar  years  from  Jan.  1,  1864,  to  Dec.  31,  1873, 
inclusive,  a  net  immigration  of  3,287,994.  Compare  these 
figures  with  the  fact  that  the  purchase  of  Louisiana,  over 
a  million  square  miles,  brought  with  it  scarcely  twenty 
thousand  white  inhabitants,  and  the  nearly  a  million 


1  See  note  at  end  of  Lecture. 


THE  NATION  TESTED. 


181 


square  miles  acquired  through  Texas  and  the  Mexican 
cessions  brought  only  some  fifty  thousand,  and  it  will  be 
seen  how  much  more  formidable  has  been  the  problem  of 
immigration  than  that  of  territory.  The  good  and  the  evil 
of  this  wholesale  influx  of  foreign  elements  into  the  body 
politic  of  the  United  States  are  so  nearly  balanced,  that  it 
is  hard  to  say  which  preponderates.  While  it  has  added 
vastly  to  the  productive  industry  and  material  wealth  of 
the  country,  it  has  detracted  from  the  dignity  of  labor  in 
the  eyes  of  the  native  American,  and  has  driven  out  the 
good  old  times  when  the  American  boy  did  not  scorn  to 
be  apprenticed  to  a  trade  or  a  farm,  and  the  American  girl 
to  go  out  to  service,  or  work  in  a  factory.  In  this  respect, 
the  foreign  element  has  somewhat  damaged  the  manly 
tone  and  hardy  spirit  of  our  people.  The  common  folk 
do  not  like  to  work  beside  the  Irish  greenhorn  or  the 
German  boor:  they  don’t  like  what  smacks  of  “the 
pauper  labor  of  Europe.” 

If,  in  some  quarters,  foreign  influence  has  stimulated  the 
culture  of  music  and  other  arts  and  amenities  of  life,  on 
the  other  hand  it  has  set  itself  against  that  wholesome 
observance  of  Sunday  and  of  temperance  laws  which  had 
been  the  safeguard  of  the  native  population  against  any 
excess  of  the  physical  and  sensuous  over  the  rational  and 
spiritual.  If,  in  some  aspects,  it  has  liberalized  thought 
and  customs,  on  the  other  hand  it  has  spread  the  mischiefs 
of  rationalism  and  materialism,  and  has  also  furnished  a 
constituency  for  the  Romish  hierarchy,  which,  after  Eng¬ 
land  had  supplanted  France  and  Spain,  had  well-nigh  lost 
hope  of  that  portion  of  the  American  continent.  If  the 
foreign  elements  of  the  population,  being  played  off  against 
each  other,  hare  at  times  done  a  good  service  to  a  political 
party,  if  they  have  given  us  now  and  then  a  statesman  or 
'a  scholar,  on  the  other  hand  they  have  furnished  the  chief 
constituency  of  the  rings  that  have  corrupted  our  polls 
and  disgraced  our  civic  administration.  If  they  have  mul¬ 
tiplied  population  as  an  element  of  national  wealth,  they 
have  multiplied  pauperism  in  a  still  greater  ratio,  and  have 
brought  with  them  the  feudalists  and  communistic  notion 
that  government  owes  a  living  to  the  poor.  If  they  have 
swollen  our  census  tables,  they  have  fearfully  swollen  our 
tables  of  crime. 


182  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


The  last  report  of  the  police  ©f  New  York  shows  for  the  year  a 
total  of  arrests,  84,514. 

Of  these  there  were  born  in  the  United  States  .  30,916 

“  “  in  Ireland .  38,009 

“  in  England  and  dependencies  .  4,385 

“  “  in  Germany . 9,597 

“  “  “  in  all  other  countries  .  .  .  1,607 

Now  the  census  of  1870  gives  us  the  total  population  of  New  York, 
942,292.  * 

Of  these  were  born  in  the  United  States .  .  .  523,198 

“  “  in  foreign  countries  .  .  .  419,094 

Hence,  in  the  first  place,  of  the  whole  number  of  crimi¬ 
nals  in  New  York  in  that  year,  notwithstanding  the  fact 
that  the  worst  creatures  from  the  country  find  their  way 
t°.  this  metropolis,  the  native  Americans  furnished  but 
thirty-five  and  five-tenths  per  cent  against  sixty-tliree  and 
five-tenths  of  foreign  birth.  But  this  is  not  the  fairest 
latio.  The  population  of  New  York,  by  the  census  of 
1870,  consisted  of  523,198  native-born  Americans  and 
419,094  foreigners ;  and,  of  these  last,  284,557  were  Irish, 
and  151,203  Germans.  Hence  the  native  criminality  was 
barely  six  per  cent  of  the  native  population,  while  the 
foreign  criminals  were  twelve  and  seven-tenths  per  cent  of 
the  foreign  population ;  and  of  these  the  Germans  were 
six  and  three-tenths  of  the  German  immigrants,  and  the 
Irish  eighteen  per  cent  of  the  Irish.  Again  1  the  police 
report  of  New-York  City  for  twelve  years,  from  1860  to 
1872,  shows  as  the  total  of  arrests,  899,544.  Of  these, 
284,591  were  native-born  (only  thirty-one  and  six-tenths 
per  cent)  against  614,953  foreign-born  (or  sixty-eight  and 
tour-tenths  per  cent).  Once  more :  the  census  for  1870  gives 
the  total  population  of  the  United  States  at  38,558,371. 
Leaving  out  of  view  the  colored  people,  whose  vices  and 
crimes  are  largely  due  to  a  previous  state  of  slavery  and 
the  sudden  change  to  a  state  of  freedom,  there  were  in 
prison  on  the  1st  of  June  of  that  year  16,117  native  whites 
and  8,  <  28  foreigners.  Here,  at  first  view,  the  average  is 
against  the  native  population.  But,  when  we  divide  the 
population  according  to  nativity,  we  have  28,111,133  whites 
of  native  birth,  of  whom  1  in  1,744  was  in  prison,  and 
0,06 <,229  of  foreign  birth,  of  whom  1  in  638  was  in  prison. 
That  is  the  relative  ratio  for  the  whole  country.  If  we 


THE  NATION  TESTED. 


183 


take  the  two  States  of  New  York  and  Massachusetts, 
which,  with  their  large  cities  and  manufacturing  towns, 
attract  a  great  percentage  of  native  vice  and  crime,  and 
in  their  seaports  retain  a  large  percentage  of  foreign  immi¬ 
gration,  we  have  an  astounding  result.  In  1870  New  York 
had  3,244,406  native  inhabitants,  of  whom  2,323  were  in 
prison  on  the  1st  of  June,  and  1,138,353  foreigners,  of 
whom  2,046  were  in  prison ;  that  is,  a  foreign  population 
of  barely  one-fourth  furnished  nearly  one-half  the  occu¬ 
pants  of  the  prisons.  Massachusetts  had  a  native  popula¬ 
tion  of  1,104,032,  of  whom  1,291  were  in  prison,  and  a 
foreign  population  of  353,319,  of  whom  1,235  were,  in 
prison ;  that  is,  with  less  than  one-fourth  of  the  population, 
foreigners  furnished  full  one-half  the  criminals.  Europeans 
who  would  judge  intelligently  American  society  must 
weigh  honestly  such  statistics.  Surely  the  sixty-four  per 
cent  of  imported  criminals  are  not  the  product  of  “  Ameri¬ 
can  civilization.”  The  fact,  that,  with  such  tides  of 
crime  and  pauperism  rolling  in  annually  from  Europe,  the 
native  elements  of  order  and  virtue  have  not  only  held 
their  own,  but  have  gained  upon  the  population  with 
schools,  churches,  and  law-abiding  communities,  shows  the 
moral  stamina  of  American  society,  and  the  conservative 
strength  of  American  institutions. 

The  reason  of  this  lies  in  the  vigor  of  the  native  stock, 
and  the  vitality  of  the  native  morality  and  religion.  The 
latter  topic  belongs  to  a  subsequent  chapter.  But  a  word 
is  needed  here  touching  the  potency  of  the  native- American 
stock.  On  this  point  the  most  preposterous  notions  pre¬ 
vail  in  Europe,  and  especially  in  Germany,  where  one 
ought  to  find  accuracy  in  works  used  as  text-books  in 
schools,  and  in  the  essays  of  publicists  and  statisticians. 
It  is  said  that  the  native  white  population  is  growing 
sterile  and  would  run  out  if  not  constantly  recruited  from 
Europe  ;  that  in  the  United  States  a  mixed  race  is  forming, 
with  as  yet  no  fixed  character ;  that  already  foreign  ele¬ 
ments  are  gaining  the  preponderance ;  that  ten  millions  of 
the  population  are  German.1  These  absurd  statements  I 
have  publicly  exposed  in  a  paper  read  before  the  Geo¬ 
graphical  Society  of  Berlin.  Summarily,  the  facts  are,  that, 

1  See  Daniel’s  Geography,  and  Louis  Schade. 


184  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

by  the  census  of  1870,  the  total  population  of  the  United 
States  was  88,558,371 ;  and  the  sum  total  of  those  who  were 
born  in  foreign  lands  was  but  5,567,229,  and  of  these  the 
Germans  could  count  only  1,690,410.  In  addition  to  the 
above  5,567,229  foreigners  residing  in  the  United  States, 
the  census  gives  5,324,786  persons,  one  or  both  of  whose 
parents  were  of  foreign  birth.  Hence  the  entire  foreign 
element  in  the  United  States,  composed  of  all  living  immi¬ 
grants,  and  all  children  even  one  of  whose  parents  was  an 
immigrant,  is  represented  by  10,892,015.  Immigration 
has  reached  its  maximum,  and  is  likely  to  decline  with 
the  improved  condition  of  Ireland  and  Germany,  and  the 
increased  dearness  of  living  in  the  United  States. 

Vital  statistics  show  a  heavier  rate  of  mortality  among 
the  foreign  than  among  the  native-born  population.  In  the 
fifty  years  from  1820  to  1870,  about  two  millions  of  the 
registered  immigrants  have  disappeared  by  death  or  return. 
Dr.  Edward  Jarvis  1  has  proved  from  official  returns,  that 
there  are  now  living  in  the  United  States,  as  descendants 
from  the  population  of  1790  (when  the  first  census  was 
taken)  sixty-two  per  cent  of  the  present  population : 
twenty-four  per  cent  of  the  population  are  native-born 
of  foreign  parents  (one  or  both),  leaving  but  fourteen 
per  cent  to  the  actual  immigration  against  sixty-two  of 
the  good  old  colonial  stock.  Of  1,500,000  men  raised 
by  the  North  during  the  civil  war,  over  eighty  per  cent 
were  native-born  Americans ;  and  in  the  Southern  army 
the  percentage  was  still  higher.  A  surgeon  who  exam¬ 
ined  thousands  of  recruits,  each  man  stripped  to  the  buff, 
told  me,  that,  in  all  conditions  of  manly  vigor  for  service 
as  soldiers,  the  native-born  were  superior  to  the  foreign- 
born  ;  and  that  this  held  true  not  only  of  men  from  the 
country,  but  of  men  born  and  reared  under  the  vitiating 
influence  of  city  life.  Life-insurance  tables  show  that 
the  average  duration  of  life  in  the  United  States  is  larger 
than  in  England.  The  native  stock  of  American  society 
lias  not  lost  its  vigor :  on  the  contrary,  it  has  grappled 
with  this  before-unheard-of  mass  of  immigration,  and  has 
so  far  mastered  it.  It  remains  only  to  leave  immigration 
to  its  normal  conditions,  without  those  artificial  stimulants 

1  Atlantic  Monthly,  April,  1872. 


THE  NATION  TESTED. 


185 


that  have  heretofore  been  applied  in  the  belief  that  we 
had  an  unbounded  extent  of  land  and  great  scarcity  of 
labor.  The  “  hard  times  ”  of  the  past  few  years  have 
demonstrated  that  the  country  was  overstocked  with  labor, 
and  farmed  in  excess  of  market  facilities,  and  that  we  were 
drawing  upon  ourselves  prematurely  the  mischiefs  of  older 
countries. 

To  avert  these  dangers,  the  government  should  alto¬ 
gether  refrain  from  that  artificial  stimulus  to  wages,  under 
the  fiction- of  “  protection  to  American  industry,”  which 
allures  foreign  labor  to  come  over  and  compete  with 
American  workmen,  and  underbid  them  at  their  side  ;  and 
should  also  refrain  from  any  mediation  between  foreign 
governments  and  their  subjects  with  a  view  to  making 
emigration  easy  and  tempting  to  the  latter.  If  Ireland 
was  sometime  oppressed  and  impoverished,  if  ever  Ger¬ 
mans  felt  their  home-burdens  grievous  to  be  borne,  it  was 
kind  and  noble  in  America  to  offer  freedom  and  a  home  to 
immigrants  and  refugees.  But  now  that  Ireland  is  freed 
from  her  state-church  and  many  of  her  land-burdens,  and 
is  constantly  improving,  America  has  no  call  of  philan¬ 
thropy  toward  her ;  and  as  for  Germans,  if  they  imagine 
they  have  grievances,  they  have  precisely  the  same  reme¬ 
dy  with  ourselves,  —  a  constitutional  government,  and  a 
parliament  elected  by  universal  suffrage.  Why,  then, 
should  we  seek  to  attract  them  from  their  fatherland  ? 
Why  make  treaties  to  ease  them  of  their  military  obliga¬ 
tions  in  case  of  emigration  ?  Let  them  look  to  their  own 
parliament  for  such  redress  as  shall  seem  wise  and  good 
for  the  nation  as  a  whole.  Those  who  run  away  from 
their  just  obligations  in  one  country  are  not  likely  to 
make  good  citizens  in  another.  If  the  government  of  the 
United  States  will  repeal  all  treaties  of  favoritism,  and  let 
alone  all  meddling  in  the  domestic  relations  of  foreign 
countries,  immigration  will  adjust  itself  to  the  law  of  sup¬ 
ply  and  demand,  and  prove  a  blessing  to  both  parties. 

44  Not  long  since,  I  was  compelled  to  take  a  night’s  lodg¬ 
ing  at  a  private  house.  For  a  bed,  supper,  and  grog  for 
myself,  my  three  companions,  and  three  servants,  I  was 
charged,  on  going  off  without  a  breakfast  next  day,  the 
sum  of  eight  hundred  and  fifty  dollars.  The  lady  of 


186  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


the  house  politely  added,  that  she  had  charged  nothing  for 
the  rooms,  and  would  leave  the  compensation  for  them 
to  my  discretion,  although  three  or  four  hundred  dollars 
would  not  he  too  much  for  the  inconvenience  to  which  she 
had  been  put  by  myself  and  my  followers.”  This  is  not 
the  complaint  of  an  American  at  Vienna  during  the  Inter¬ 
national  Exposition,  nor  of  an  Englishman  afflicted  with 
Confederate  or  Turkish  bonds.  It  was  the  experience  of 
Gen.  Baron  von  Kalb  on  his  way  through  Virginia,  to 
re-enforce  the  Southern  army,  in  the  spring  of  1780.  In 
Philadelphia  he  paid  four  hundred  dollars  for  a  hat,  the 
same  for  a  pair  of  boots ;  and  for  a  good  horse  “  was  asked 
a  price  equivalent  to  ten  years  of  his  pay.” 1  A  Tory 
wit  of  the  time  of  the  Revolution  announced  that  there 
would  be  a  new  issue  of  paper  dollars  by  Congress  as  soon 
as  the  rags  of  Washington’s  army  could  be  spared  for  that 
purpose.2  Another  Tory  advertised  for  Continental  money 
at  the  rate  of  a  guinea  per  thousand,  to  be  used  for  paper¬ 
ing  rooms.  Yet  this  money  was  an  enforced  legal  tender ; 
and  I  have  read  upon  the  face  of  a  sixpenny  note  the 
awful  warning,  “  To  counterfeit  is  death.”  Jefferson  com¬ 
puted  that  the  two  hundred  millions  of  dollars  emitted 
by  Congress  from  1775  to  1779  inclusive  were  worth,  to 
those  who  received  them,  but  about  thirty-six  millions  of 
silver  dollars.3  But  the  nation  survived  this  degradation 
of  its  credit,  this  bankruptcy  of  its  treasury,  and  a  few 
}rears  later,  under  the  genius  of  Alexander  Hamilton,  pro¬ 
duced  a  financial  system  that  at  once  gave  stability  at 
home,  and  confidence  abroad.  In  the  strong  but  just 
words  of  Webster,  “Hamilton  touched  the  dead  corpse  of 
the  public  credit,  and  it  sprang  upon  its  feet.”4 

Again :  during  the  war  of  1812  all  the  banks  south  of 
New  England  suspended  specie  payments;  and  their  paper 
“fell  so  low,  that  a  bill  on  Boston  could  not  be  purchased 
at  Washington  under  an  advance  of  from  twenty  to  twenty- 
five  per  cent.”  Yet  the  nation  emerged  with  safety  and 
honor  from  the  financial  complications  of  that  day.  The 
war  of  Gen.  Jackson  upon  the  Bank  of  the  United  States, 
and  his  famous  Specie  Circular.,  brought  on  another  finan- 

1  G.  W.  Greene,  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  October,  1875. 

2  Moore’s  Diary  of  the  Revolution,  ii.  16. 

3  Works,  vol.  ix.  259,  260.  4  Works,  vol.  i.  200. 


THE  NATION  TESTED. 


187 


cial  flurry ;  yet  in  1886  the  United  States  presented  the 
unwonted  spectacle  of  a  government  having  a  surplus 
revenue  without  levying  one  direct  tax  upon  the  people. 
The  country  has  passed  through  commercial  revulsions,  in 
which  a  class  of  merchants,  bankers,  and  institutions,  have 
proved  dishonest ;  now  and  then  a  State  has  taken  upon 
itself  the  dishonesty  and  disgrace  of  repudiation :  but  such 
acts  do  not  represent  the  tone  of  commercial  or  national 
honor.  With  a  debt  of  enormous  proportions,  the  United 
States  are  in  no  danger  of  following  the  precedent  of 
Turkey;  with  a  depreciated  currency  and  a  disordered 
commerce,  they  are  not  going  to  dishonor  their  bonds.  If 
Congress  will  but  take  the  warning  of  Walsingham  in 
1780,  that  “money  is  on  a  footing  with  commerce  and 
religion,  they  all  three  refuse  to  be  the  subjects  of  law,” 
the  nation  will  come  out  of  its  present  depression  more 
sober,  more  stable,  more  solid,  than  ever ;  and  no  financial 
storm  shall  ever  shake  its  centre,  or  jeopard  its  life. 

War,  _  always  a  severe  strain  upon  any  nation,  brings 
speclaTrisks  to  a  republic.  Besides  the  tax  upon  industry, 
finances,  loyalty,  and  life,  a  state  of  war  in  a  republic  may 
facilitate  encroachments  upon  popular  liberty,  and  open 
the  way  to  military  usurpation  or  the  rivalries  of  military 
factions.  One  needs  but  to  recall  the  later  history  of  the 
Roman  Republic,  and  the  Italian  Republics  of  the  middle 
ages,  to  realize  how  imminent  and  fatal  such  dangers 
may  be.  But  the  people  of  the  United  States  have  three 
times  met  these  perils,  and  surmounted  them.  Not  to 
speak  of  the  wars  with  Tripoli  and  Algiers,  which  gave  a 
mortal  blow  to  piracy  in  the  Mediterranean ;  the  Indian 
war,  in  which  Gen.  Harrison  broke  Tecumseh’s  league ;  the 
Florida  war,  that  prepared  the  cession  of  the  territory  by 
Spain ;  and  the  later  war  with  the  Seminoles,  that  led  to 
their  extermination,  —  the  century  has  tested  the  American  - 
people  by  two  foreign  wars  of  significance  and  a  civil  war 
of  colossal  proportions.  The  war  with  England  in  1812  was 
entered  into  with  little  enthusiasm,  and  much  open  opposi¬ 
tion  ;  and  it  dragged  along,  with  no  decisive  results  and 
some  humiliating  disasters,  till  both  parties  were  ready  for 
peace  in  1815.  But  it  proved  the  United  States  able  to 
cope  in  arms  with  the  power  from  which  they  had  won 


188  CENTENNIAL  OE  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

their  independence,  and  especially  capable  of  defying  the 
mistress  of  the  sea.  The  war  was  begun  to  resist  the 
right  of  search  and  the  impressment  of  seamen  from 
American  vessels :  it  made  the  names  of  Bainbridge,  Bid¬ 
dle,  Decatur,  Hull,  Jones,  Lawrence,  Perry,  Porter,  Stew¬ 
art,  illustrious  in  naval  warfare  ;  and  when  Perry  quit  his 
sinking  flag-ship  in  an  open  boat,  under  Are  of  the  enemy, 
and,  mounting  liis  second  ship,  captured  the  entire  squad¬ 
ron  of  Lake  Erie,  the  hitherto  unchallenged  refrain,  “  Rule, 
Britannia,  rule  the  waves,”  was  broken  by  his  laconic  report, 
“  We  have  met  the  enemy,  and  they  are  ours.”  The  clos¬ 
ing  battles  of  Lundy’s  Lane  and  New  Orleans  left  America 
mistress  of  herself,  at  least  from  the  St.  Lawrence  to  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico. 

The  war  with  Mexico  in  1846,  though  costing  relatively 
little  in  treasure  and  blood,  was  a  severe  strain  upon  the 
morale  of  the  nation.  It  was  not  only  against  the  judg¬ 
ment,  but  against  the  conscience,  of  a  large  body  of  the 
people,  who  looked  upon  it  as  an  unwarrantable  invasion 
of  a  neighbor  country  in  order  to  extend  the  area  of  slave¬ 
ry.  Though  it  gave  occasion  for  brilliant  feats  of  arms 
under  Gens.  Scott,  Taylor,  and  Wool,  and  secured  to  the 
United  States  possession  of  Texas,  New  Mexico,  and  Cali¬ 
fornia,  this  acquisition  proved  a  Pandora’s  box  of  plagues 
and  woes. 

We  have  seen  in  the  Third  Lecture  how  sedulously  the 
term  “  slavery  ”  and  any  formal  sanction  of  the  system  were 
kept  out  of  the  Constitution,  and  how  general,  at  that  time, 
was  the  expectation  that  slavery  would  come  to  an  end, 
as  incongruous  with  the  new  order  of  things,  and  wasteful 
in  the  view  of  political  economy.  As  the  sentiment  and 
practice  of  Christendom  then  were,  slavery  having  been  at 
first  forced  upon  the  Colonies,  its  existence  at  the  forma¬ 
tion  of  the  Union  was  a  thing  for  which  u  nobody  was  to 
blame ;  ”  and  it  was  left,  without  recrimination,  to  those 
who  were  implicated  in  it  to  ease  themselves  of  it  in  their 
own  way.  But,  as  time  went  on,  the  invention  of  the  cot¬ 
ton-gin,  by  giving  new  facility  to  slave-hands,  increased 
the  value  of  slave-labor ;  anel  the  fact  that  slaves,  though 
not  citizens,  were  reckoned  as  three-fifths  in  the  basis  of 
representation,  proved  to  the  South  a  valuable  element  of 


THE  NATION  TESTED. 


189 


political  power.  Nevertheless,  the  North  and  AVest,  invit¬ 
ing  immigration,  and  favoring  enterprise  and  expansion, 
be^an  to  give  a  political  preponderance  to  free  labor :  and, 
inasmuch  as  the  Ordinance  of  U  87  and  the  Missouri  Com¬ 
promise  had  set  a  barrier  to  the  extension  of  slavery  north¬ 
ward,  the  system  demanded  new  territory  for  its  own 
productiveness,  and  new  States  for  retaining  its  balance  in 
the  Senate  ;  and  so  the  old-fashioned  toleration  to  slavery, 
doomed  to  a  natural  death,  gave  place  to  the  propagation 
of  slavery  by  use  of  the  Constitution  as  its  vital  force,  and 
to  a  counter-movement  for  its  abolition  as  a  political  dan¬ 
ger  and  a  moral  evil.  If,  in  the  period  from  1820  to  1850, 
the  South  had  resolutely  planned  the  gradual  but  certain 
extinction  of  slavery,  I  am  persuaded  that  the  North 
would  have  freely  shared  with  her  the  financial  loss,  and 
left  her  to  transform  her  domestic  institutions  in  her  own 
way.  But  when  the  policy  of  maintaining  and  propagat¬ 
ing  the  system  was  pushed  not  only  over  the  territory  of 
the  continent,  but  within  the  territory  of  the  Constitution, 
the  North  took  alarm ;  and  when,  finally,  the  restrictive 
compromises  of  former  days  were  repealed,  and  the  h  egi- 
tive-slave  Law  made  the  United-States  Government  active, 
and  the  people  of  the  United  States  personally  responsible, 
in  the  support  and  extension  of  slavery,  then  that  old 
troublesome,  stubborn,  sometimes  wilful  Puritan  thing 
called  conscience  was  roused ;  and  this  soon  entered  into 
and  controlled  political  action.  Under  the  old  state  of 
things,  the  existence  of  slavery  as  a  purely  local  institution 
of  the  Southern  States  touched  no  man’s  conscience  at 
the  North,  since  the  resident  of  a  non-slaveholding  State 
had  no  more  responsibility  for  it  there  than  in  Cuba.  He 
might  regret  it ;  but  he  could  not  reach  it  to  remove  it. 
But  when  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  (1854) 
threw  open  to  slavery  territory  once  consecrated  to  free¬ 
dom,  and  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the 
Dred  Scott  case  held  slaves  to  be  property  in  every  part 
of  the  national  territory,  the  conscientious  men  of  the 
North  felt,  that,  through  their  representatives  at  the  seat 
of  government,  they  were  made  personally  responsible  for  a 
system  which  they  disapproved  politically,  and  condemned 
morally.  Therefore  they  organized  a  party  against  the 


190  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

extension  of  slavery,  and  the  support  of  it  by  the  National 
Government.  This  organization  was  not  directed  against 
the  South  as  a  section,  nor  against  the  laws  and  institu¬ 
tions  of  the  Southern  States,  but  against  certain  political 
demagogues  of  the  North,— the  worst  friends  the  South 
ever  had,  —  who  courted  the  support  of  the  South  by  vol¬ 
unteering  to  be  propagandists  of  slavery.  These  were 
the  mischief-makers  who  arrayed  party  against  party,  and 
section  against  section.  New  compromises  were  essayed; 
but  blood  was  up.  The  armed  resistance  to  the  slave  occu¬ 
pation  of  Kansas,  and  the  raid  of  John  Brown  into  Vir¬ 
ginia,  had  opened  the  gates  of  war ;  and  the  election  of 
Mi.  Lincoln,  in  face  of  the  threat  of  secession,  determined 
the  Southern  leaders  to  put  that  threat  in  execution. 
Mr.  Lincoln  declared  in  his  inaugural  address,  “  I  have  no 
purpose,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  interfere  with  the  insti¬ 
tution  of  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists.  I  believe  I 
have  no  lawful  right  to  do  so ;  and  I  have  no  inclination 
to  do  so.”  None  can  doubt  the  honesty  of  that  statement: 
for  though  Mr.  Lincoln  was  opposed  to  slavery  upon  moral 
grounds,  and  had  opposed  its  extension  into  free  territorv 
upon  grounds  both  political  and  moral,  he  was  sworn  to 
uphold  the  Constitution ;  and  he  knew  that  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  gave  him  no  power  or  pretext  of  interfering  with 
slavery  in  the  States.  Later  on,  the  state  of  war  gave  him 
that  power  as  a  measure  for  suppressing  rebellion.  But 
the  die  was  cast.  The  fact  of  his  inauguration  showed 
that  the  political  rule  of  slavery  was  over;  and,  on  the  part 
of  the  South,  secession  was  a  foregone  conclusion.  As  the 
conscience  ot  the  free  States  was  roused  by  the  acts  of 
1850-54,  so  now  the  loyal  enthusiasm  of  the  people  was 
roused  by  the  firing  on  the  flag  of  the  nation  at  Fort  Sum¬ 
ter.  Then  came  four  years  of  weary,  bloody  war,  —  on  the 
one  side  for  the  disruption  of  the  Union,  on  the  other  for 
the  maintenance  of  the  Union  in  its  entirety  and  suprema¬ 
cy*  executive  head  of  the  nation,  Mr.  Lincoln 

said,  “  In  the  contemplation  of  universal  law  and  of  the 
Constitution,  the  union  of  these  States  is  perpetual.  It  is 
safe  to  say  that  no  government  proper  ever  had  a  provis¬ 
ion  in  its  organic  law  for  its  own  termination.” 1  “  The 

1  Inaugural,  18G1. 


THE  NATION  TESTED. 


191 


States  liave  their  status  in  the  Union,  and  they  have  no 
other  legal  status .”  1  “  Our  popular  government  has  often 

been  called  an  experiment.  Two  points  in  it  our  people 
have  settled, — the  successful  establishing  and  the  success¬ 
ful  administering  of  it.  One  still  remains,  —  its  successful 
maintenance  against  a  formidable  attempt  to  overthrow 
it.” 2  And  in  that  brief  address  at  the  dedication  of  the 
cemetery  at  Gettysburg,  with  a  simple  pathos  that  places 
this  among  the  masterpieces  of  eloquence,  Mr.  Lincoln 
said,  “  Fourscore  and  seven  years  ago,  our  fathers  brought 
forth  upon  this  continent  a  new  nation,  conceived  in 
liberty,  and  dedicated  to  the  proposition  that  all  men  are 
created,  equal.  Now  we  are  engaged  in  a  great  civil  war, 
testing  whether  that  nation,  or  any  nation  so  conceived 
and  so  dedicated,  can  long  endure.  We  are  met  on  a 
great  battle-field  of  that  war.  We  are  met  to  dedicate  a 
portion  of  it  as  the  final  resting-place  of  those  who  here 
gave  their  lives  that  that  nation  might  live.  It  is  alto¬ 
gether  fitting  and  proper  that  we  should  do  this. 

“  But,  in  a  larger  sense,  we  cannot  dedicate,  we  cannot 
consecrate,  we  'cannot  hallow,  this  ground.  The  brave 
men,  living  and  dead,  who  struggled  here,  have  consecrat¬ 
ed  it  far  above  our  power  to  acid  or  detract.  The  world 
will  little  note,  nor  long  remember,  what  we  say  here  ;  but 
it  can  never  forget  what  they  did  here.  It  is  for  us,  the 
living,  rather  to  be  dedicated  here  to  the  unfinished  work 
that  they  have  thus  far  so  nobly  carried  on ;  it  is  rather 
for  ns  to  be  here  dedicated  to  the  great  task  remaining 
before  us,  —  that  from  these  honored  dead  we  take  in¬ 
creased  devotion  to  the  cause  for  which  they  here  gave 
the  last  full 'measure  of  devotion;  that  we  here  highly 
resolve  that  the  dead  shall  not  have  died  in  vain ;  that 
the  nation  shall,  under  God,  have  a  new  birth  of  freedom ; 
and  that  the  government  of  the  people,  by  the  people,  and 
for  the  people,  shall  not  perish  from  the  earth.”  3  That 
prophetic  hope  was  realized  when  slavery  and  secession 
were  extinguished  together.4 

But  the  vindication  of  the  Union  against  separatism 
was  not  the  only  triumph  of  the  war.  The  prolonged  and 

l  First  message,  July  4,  1861.  2  Ibid.  8  Nov.  19,  1863. 

4  See  note  at  close  of  Lecture. 


192  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

terrible  strain  to  which  the  nation  was  subjected  in  spirit, 
men,  and  resources,  showed  the  energy,  the  endurance, 
the  voluntary  sacrifice,  the  patriotic  devotion,  of  a  people 
self-developed  under  the  institutions  of  liberty.  The 
rapid  equipment  of  a  nation  surprised  by  an  attempt 
upon  its  organic  life  demonstrated  that  a  free  people  can 
adapt  themselves  to  any  emergency,  and  learn  from  disas¬ 
ter  new  lessons  of  courage,  patience,  and  success.  The 
generalship  'brought  out  in  Lee  and  Jackson  on  the  one 
side,  and  in  Grant,  Sherman,  Thomas,  and  others,  on  the 
other,  and  the  bravery  of  the  men  on  both  sides,  showed 
that  the  noblest  qualities  of  heroism  and  chivalry  can  be 
brought  out  by  occasion,  where  the  government  is  not 
military,  and  the  people  are  not  compelled  to  learn  the  art 
of  war.  And  the  sublime  moral  spectacle  of  the  disband¬ 
ing  of  vast  armies,  and  their  quiet  return  with  their  lead¬ 
ers  to  the  occupations  of  peace,  has  taught  the  world  how 
a  great  free  nation  can  accept  war  as  a  stern  necessity, 
without  courting  it  as  an  excitement,  or  toying  with  it  as 
a  game.  And,  above  all,  the  war  that  fought  out  a  politi¬ 
cal  quarrel  to  the  end  fought  the  contestants  into  that 
mutual  prowess  and  respect  that  shall  cement  a  manly 
and  enduring  friendship.  The  nation  having  passed  this 
v  fiery  ordeal,  there  was  but  one  more  test  to  which  it  could 
be  put,  —  an  assault  upon  its  head,  with  a  view  to  paralyze 
the  government,  and  throw  the  country  into  anarchy. 
The  assassination  of  Caesar  paved  the  way  for  the  empire. 
The  assassination  of  the  Prince  of  Orange  was  followed 
by  the  disastrous  dissensions  between  Maurice  and  Barne- 
veld.  The  assassination  of  Mr.  Lincoln  was  absolutely 
without  effect  upon  the  normal  functions  of  the  govern¬ 
ment.  It  rekindled  for  a  while  the  smouldering  animosities 
of  the  war,  and  gave  greater  stringency  to  the  terms  of 
settlement ;  it  elevated  to  the  presidency  a  man  whom  the 
people  had  not  soberly  thought  of  for  that  contingency, 
and  whose  violent  eccentricities  provoked  a  somewhat 
demagogic  movement  for  his  impeachment.  He  was  a 
man  of  strong,  untrained  powers,  and  stronger  untamed 
will,  and,  in  an  arbitrary  government,  might  have  made  an 
uncomfortable  despot.  But  at  heart  Andrew  Johnson  had 
an  honest,  even  fiery,  devotion  to  the  Union ;  and  his  gross 


THE  NATION  TESTED. 


193 


infirmities  of  liabit,  of  ignorance,  of  vanity,  and  of  tem¬ 
per,  may  be  gently  buried  with  his  dying  request,  “  Wrap 
me  in  the  flag  of  my  country.” 

Of  Abraham  Lincoln  it  could  be  said,  as  of  William  of 
Orange,  “  He  went  through  life  bearing  the  load  of  a 
people’s  sorrows  upon  his  shoulders  with  a  smiling  face. 
.  .  .  As  long  as  he  lived,  he  was  the  guiding  star  of  a 
whole  brave  nation ;  and,  when  he  died,  the  little  children 
cried  in  the  streets.”  But,  though  the  nation  felt  the 
shudder  of  his  death  in  all  its  veins,  it  gathered  from  his 
death  the  whole  vigor  and  virtue  of  his  patient,  heroic  life. 
After  the  lapse  of  ten  years,  I  can  find  no  fitter  words  to 
describe  its  effect  than  those  with  which  I  sought  to  re-as- 
sure  my  countrymen  on  the  very  day  of  his  assassination : 
“  A  chief  lesson  impressed  upon  us  to-day  is  the  imperish¬ 
able  vitality  of  government,  and  the  grandeur  of  our 
Constitution  under  all  emergencies.  We  have  seen  it 
tested  in  conflict  with  foreign  powers ;  we  have  seen  it 
tested  by  the  fearful  strain  of  civil  war,  and  by  the  scarce 
less  anxious  trial  of  a  presidential  election  in  the  midst  of 
war ;  and  it  has  stood.  And  now,  under  this  severest 
shock,  —  a  shock  that  might  shatter  a  kingdom  or  an  em¬ 
pire  into  chaos,  —  it  still  stands.  That  mysterious,  invisi¬ 
ble,  impalpable  entity  we  call  the  State,  that  intangible 
something  that  we  call  Government,  stands  forth  to-day  in 
awful  reality.  The  sovereignty  of  the  people  lifts  its 
next  representative  into  the  just  vacant  chair.  The  State 
moves  on  without  pause  at  the  nation’s  grief,  without 
concussion  from  the  blow  that  struck  down  the  nation’s 
head.  The  bullet  of  the  assassin  did  not  touch  its  vitali¬ 
ty.  The  life  of  the  Constitution  was  not  endangered. 
The  State  moves  calmly,  steadily  onward,  with  no  jar  in 
any  of  its  functions.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  statue  of 
Liberty  which  crowns  the  dome  of  the  Capitol,  —  that 
worthy  and  typical  memorial  of  Abraham  Lincoln’s  ad¬ 
ministration,  —  looking  calmly  down  upon  the  august  pres¬ 
ence  of  death,  beckoned  to  the  State  beyond,  saying,  ‘  Let 
the  dead  bury  their  dead :  follow  thou  me.’  And  the 
State  moved  on,  and  will  move  on,  in  the  line  of  freedom 
and  justice,  unshaken  forever.”  1 

1  Speecli  at  the  Union  League  Club,  New  York,  April  15, 18G5. 


194  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


NOTE  ON  FOREIGN  PREDICTIONS  CONCERNING  THE 

UNITED  STATES. 

There  is  a  curious  tendency  in  foreign  critics  of  American  society 
to  resolve  every  social  and  political  problem  within  the  republic  into 
the  question  of  the  continuance  of  the  republic  itself.  This  is  done 
even  by  critics  who  bear  no  ill-will  toward  America,  and  are  not 
averse  to  popular  government.  A  striking  example  of  such  political 
pessimism  occurs  in  the  address  of  Prof.  Huxley  at  the  opening  of 
the  Johns  Hopkins  University  in  Baltimore.  Huxley  had  spoken 
generously  enough  of  America  as  a  whole,  and  his  own  reception  in 
particular  ;  but  he  closed  his  address  with  these  words  :  — 

“I  cannot  say  that  I  am  in  the  slightest  degree  impressed  by  your 
bigness,  or  your  material  resources  as  such.  Size  is  not  grandeur,  and 
territory  does  not  make  a  nation.  The  great  issue  about  which  hangs  a 
true  sublimity  and  the  terror  of  overhanging  fate  is,  What  are  you  going 
to  do  with  all  these  things?  What  is  to  be  the  end  to  which  these  are  to 
be  the  means?  You  are  making  a  novel  experiment  in  politics  on  the 
greatest  scale  which  the  world  has  yet  seen.  Forty  millions  at  your  first 
centenary,  it  is  reasonably  to  be  expected,  that,  at  the  second,  these  States 
will  be  occupied  by  two  hundred  millions  of  English-speaking  people 
spread  over  an  area  as  large  as  that  of  Europe,  and  with  climates  and  in¬ 
terest's  as  diverse  as  those  of  Spain  and  Scandinavia,  England  and  Russia. 
You  and  your  descendants  have  to  ascertain  whether  this  great  mass  will 
hold  together  under  the  forms  of  a  republic  and  the  despotic  reality  of 
universal  suffrage;  whether  State-rights  will  hold  out  against  centraliza¬ 
tion  without  separation;  whether  centralization  will  get  the  better  without 
actual  or  disguised  monarchy;  whether  shifting  corruption  is  better  than  a 
permanent  bureaucracy :  and  as  population  thickens  in  your  great  cities, 
and  the  pressure  of  want  is  felt,  the  gaunt  spectre  of  pauperism  will  stalk 
among  you,  and  communism  and  socialism  will  claim  to  be  heard. 

“Truly,  America  has  a  great  future  before  her,  — great  in  toil,  in  care, 
and  in  responsibility;  great  in  true  glory,  if  she  be  guided  in  wisdom  and 
righteousness;  great  in  shame,  if  she  fail.  I  cannot  understand  why  other 
nations  should  envy  you,  or  fail  to  see  that  it  is  for  the  highest  interests  of 
mankind  that  you  should  succeed;  but  the  one  condition  of  success,  your 
sole  safeguard,  is  the  moral  worth  and  intellectual  clearness  of  the  indi¬ 
vidual  citizen.  Education  cannot  give  these;  but  it  can  cherish  them,  and 
bring  them  to  the  front,  in  whatever  station  of  society  they  are  to  be 
found;  and  the  universities  ought  to  be  and  may  be  the  fortresses  of  the 
higher  life  of  the  nation.” 

All  this  is  meant  for  friendly  counsel,  and  it  should  be  received  in 
the  same  spirit;  though  the  ill-concealed  tone  of  patronage  reminds 
one  of  “  a  certain  condescension  in  foreigners,”  with  which  the 
English  critic  is  especially  apt  to  divert  us.  But  no  well-informed 
American  can  read  without  a  smile  the  assumption  of  Prof.  Huxley, 
that  every  problem  that  he  fancies  to  arise  in  the  future  of  American 
society  must  involve  the  existence  of  the  republic;  that  our  “ novel 
experiment”  is  oscillating  between  “separation”  and  “monarchy,” 
and  that  all  our  energies  must  be  strained  to  the  one  purpose  of 
making  the  mass  “hold  together.”  A  scientific  study  of  American 
institutions  might  have  acquainted  him  with  the  protoplasm  of  our 


NOTE  ON  FOREIGN  PREDICTIONS. 


195 


national  life,  —  that  local  self-government  whose  vital  force  is  not 
impaired  by  extent  of  territory,  or  mass  of  population.  This  is  the 
“yeast”  that  leavens  the  whole  lump,  and  whose  fermentation 
renders  the  mass  porous  without  destroying  its  cohesion. 

Or,  had  Prof.  Huxley  studied  scientifically  the  Machinery  Hall 
at  the  Philadelphia  Exposition,  it  might  have  occurred  to  him  that 
the  great  Corliss  Engine  was  the  analogue  of  the  National  Constitu¬ 
tion  ;  each  separate  machine  being  connected  with  this  by  its  own 
band,  sharing  the  central  impulse  and  control,  yet  doing  its  own  work 
in  its  own  way ;  and  the  vast  aggregate  of  machines,  wheels  within 
wheels,  performing  their  diversified  functions  with  a  sublime  har¬ 
mony  of  movement,  and  conservation  of  energy,  without  either  con¬ 
centration,  collision,  or  divergence. 

There  are  certain  scolds  in  England,  from  Matthew  Arnold  down 
to  Mrs.  Partington,  who  fancy  that  the  British  Constitution  is 
threatened  by  every  new  agitation  in  the  politics  or  the  economics 
of  society.  An  estimable  lady  said  to  me  in  England  the  other  day, 
“  Do  you  see  any  hope  for  England  ?  I  fear  it  is  all  over  with  us. 
We  have  provoked  the  Lord  by  our  doings  in  China  and  India,  and 
by  our  worldliness  and  luxury  at  home ;  and  now  it  would  seem  that 
the  plagues  of  Darwinism  and  Ritualism  are  let  loose  upon  us  to 
devour  us.  Don’t  you  think  we  are  living  under  the  Sixth  Vial?  ” 

I  was  so  irreverent  as  to  doubt  whether  the  writer  of  the  Apoca¬ 
lypse  looked  much  beyond  the  plagues  and  vials  of  his  own  time,  and 
had  so  much  as  a  speck  of  England  in  his  prophetic  eye ;  and  I  felt 
confident,  that,  however  Darwin  and  Huxley  might  disturb  the  foun¬ 
dations  of  the  universe,  they  would  never  lay  sacrilegious  hands  upon 
the  British  Constitution;  while,  as  to  Ritualism,  I  wTas  sure  the 
average  Englishman  had  too  much  common  sense  in  his  head  to  be 
lured  to  destruction  by  the  gyrations  of  some  weaker  Englishman’s 
heels.  No  doubt  England  has  to  do  with  problems  of  very  grave 
import.  No  doubt  exigencies  will  continue  to  arise  that  shall  task 
all  the  wisdom  of  her  statesmen,  and  all  the  patriotism  and  endur¬ 
ance  of  her  people.  The  question  of  dis-establishing  the  National 
Church ;  the  labor  question,  —  agricultural,  mining,  manufacturing ; 
the  education  question,  hitherto  but  glozed  over;  the  Irish  question, 
that  will  not  down;  the  Indian  question,  with  the  glowing  heat  of 
native  intelligence,  and  the  Russian  glacier  crowding  on ;  the  woman 
question,  that  in  England  means  something  more  than  the  airy 
nothings  and  puffings  of  American  platforms;  the  coal  question, 
now  that  the  exhaustion  of  English  mines  is  matter  of  mathematical 
calculation;  the  industrial  question,  now  that  American  manufac¬ 
tures  begin  to  compete  with  English  in  foreign  markets;  the  navy 
question,  now  that  other  nations  are  creating  fleets  to  dispute  the 
dominion  of  the  sea;  the  army  question,  now  that  the  Continent  is 
transformed  into  a  camp  of  nations  in  arms,  —  these,  and  many  others, 
are  grave  and  perilous  questions  for  England  to  grapple  with :  but  he 
would  be  a  neophyte  in  political  philosophy  who  should  confound 
such  questions  with  the  existence  of  the  British  Constitution.  The 
monarchy  might  not  be  able  to  survive  another  George  upon  the 
throne ;  but,  aside  from  this,  the  advent  of  a  democracy  in  England 
is  hardly  more  likely  than  the  return  of  a  Stuart  or  a  Tudor. 


196  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


Often  as  I  am  called  upon  to  speak  in  England  upon  public 
questions,  I  have  never  deemed  it  courteous  nor  wise  for  me  as  a  for¬ 
eigner  to  meddle  in  domestic  controversies,  nor  to  hint  at  these  as 
affecting  the  life  or  death  of  the  nation,  destined  to  make  her  “  great 
in  glory,”  or  “  great  in  shame.”  We,  too,  have  our  problems,  grave, 
earnest,  imminent.  But  these  are  questions  of  party,  of  policy,  of 
reform,  of  adaptation,  not  at  all  questions  of  the  form  of  government, 
of  the  life  of  the  State.  These  last  do  not  enter  into  the  thought  of 
the  American  citizen,  do  not  come  within  the  horizon  of  political  ac¬ 
tion.  They  are  settled  in  the  very  organism  of  society ;  and  this  is 
part  of  the  life  of  the  individual.  Our  race-stock  is  as  old  and  as 
vital  as  the  English,  from  which  it  sprang ;  our  political  force  and 
sagacity  have  not  lost  by  transplanting;  our  area  for  the  ventilation 
of  necessary  social  problems  is  wider,  freer,  and  therefore  safer,  than 
that  of  England.  Every  question  affecting  government  has  been  tried 
and  determined.  The  problems  hinted  at  by  Prof.  Huxley  are  simply 
problems  of  administration  and  adjustment,  and  do  not  come  within 
a  thousand  leagues  of  the  form  and  essence  of  government.  Let 
English  critics  once  master  this  distinction,  and  their  counsels  will 
be  respected  where  now  their  croakings  are  laughed  at.  Mr.  Mill  per¬ 
ceived  this  when  he  indorsed  the  opinion  of  M.  de  Tocqueville,  that 
“if  a  community  is  so  situated  or  so  ordered  that  it  can  support  the 
transitory  action  of  bad  laws,  and  can  await  without  destruction 
the  result  of  the  general  tendency  of  the  laws,  that  country  will 
prosper  more  under  a  democratic  government  than  under  any  other.” 


NOTE  ON  PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTIONS  AND  CIVIL  WAR. 

The  closeness  of  the  presidential  vote  in  1876,  and  the  charges 
of  fraud,  and  threats  of  violence,  that  the  uncertainty  of  the  count 
gave  rise  to,  called  forth  in  Europe  fresh  prophecies  of  civil  war  and 
the  failure  of  republican  government.  The  silly  suggestion  of  some¬ 
body  in  New  Orleans,  that  the  United  States  should  be  transformed 
into  an  empire  under  Gen.  Grant,  was  paraded  in  German  news¬ 
papers  with  an  air  of  triumph,  and  in  delicious  obliviousness  of  the 
fact,  that  though  an  American  editor  could  make  such  a  suggestion, 
and  simply  be  laughed  at,  should  a  German  editor  propose  the  aboli¬ 
tion  of  the  empire  for  a  republic,  and  the  disbanding  of  the  stand¬ 
ing  army,  he  might  be  treated  to  a  change  of  air  and  diet  in  the 
nearest  jail  or  fortress.  Some  English  critics  have  assumed  that 
civil  war  was  imminent,  because,  as  they  conceive,  the  Rebellion 
broke  out  with  as  little  warning,  through  dissatisfaction  with  tho 
election  of  a  president.  It  is  not  surprising  that  foreigners  should 
have  imagined  the  crisis  to  be  so  serious,  since  so  few  even  of  the 
best-informed  European  writers  have  fairly  mastered  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  and  Government  of  the  United  States  or  the  characteristics  of 
the  American  people,  and  since  so  much  of  European  experience 
has  pointed  to  revolution  or  war  as  the  normal  solution  of  political 


NOTE  ON  PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTIONS,  ETC. 


197 


difficulties.  But  people  should  not  pronounce  upon  what  they  do  not 
understand,  nor  prophesy  without  valid  tokens  of  inspiration.1  Grave 
and  perplexing  as  was  this  phase  of  a  presidential  contest,  the  thought¬ 
ful  American  could  see  in  it  nothing  perilous,  nor  even  threatening. 
Biots  there  might  be,  and  heated  dispute  ;  but  there  was  no  analogy 
in  the  case  to  the  Rebellion  of  1861.  First,  there  was  not  now,  as 
in  the  Rebellion,  any  great  social,  financial,  and  sectional  interest 
binding  one  portion  or  party  against  the  other,  and  forming  at  once 
the  motive  and  the  nucleus  for  resistance  and  revolt.  Though 
the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  was  made  a  pretext  for  the  Rebel¬ 
lion,  the  preservation  of  the  system  of  slavery  was  its  real  and  only 
motive.  The  speech  of  Mr.  Stephens,  then  Vice-President  of  the 
Confederacy,  at  Savannah,  in  March  1861,  put  that  point  squarely 
and  conclusively.  After  characterizing  Jefferson’s  doctrine  of  the 
rights  of  nature  and  the  equality  of  races  as  an  error,  and  the  gov¬ 
ernment  founded  upon  such  ideas  as  resting  on  the  sand,  Mr.  Ste¬ 
phens  said,  “  Our  new  government  is  based  upon  quite  the  contrary 
ideas.  Its  foundations  are  laid,  its  corner-stone  rests,  upon  the  great 
truth,  that  the  negro  is  not  equal  to  the  white  man ;  that  slavery, 
subordination  to  the  superior  race,  is  his  natural  and  normal  condi¬ 
tion.  Our  government  is  the  first  in  the  history  of  the  world  that 
rests  upon  this  great  physical,  philosophical,  and  moral  truth.  .  .  . 
The  stone  which  the  builders  rejected  has  become  the  corner-stone 
of  our  new  edifice.” 

When  we  consider  in  how  many  States  contiguous  to  one  another 
slavery  was  the  one  vital  interest  of  society,  the  basis  of  labor,  the 
source  of  wealth,  the  drudge  of  the  household  and  the  plantation; 
how  it  had  existed  from  the  foundation  of  the  Colonies,  and  had 
grown  with  the  Commonwealth,  until  every  life,  fortune,  and  estate 
was  bound  up  with  it,  —  we  see  in  this  interest,  concentrated  within  a 
circumscribed  territory,  a  motive  to  violent  defence  to  which  there  is 
nothing  analogous  in  the  political  differences  of  parties  scattered 
over  the  whole  country,  changing  their  relations  and  proportions 
year  by  year,  and,  except  in  the  matter  of  voting,  accustomed  to  act 
together  as  neighbors  and  friends.  There  is  not  enough  to  kindle 
civil  war  in  the  breezes  of  a  popular  contest  that  may  change  about 
at  the  next  election.  Next :  the  election  of  1876  involved  no  question 
of  separation,  or  of  change  in  the  form  of  government.  Both  parties 
were  alike  interested  in  maintaining  the  Union  and  the  Constitution  : 
the  only  dispute  was,  which  party,  by  legal  methods,  should  gain  con¬ 
trol  of  the  administration  for  a  term  of  years.  Again  :  there  was 
no  organization  on  either  side  for  deciding  the  issue  by  force.  So  far 
as  there  was  any  show  of  force,  this  was  on  the  part  of  the  actual 
government,  by  way  of  police,  as  a  precaution  for  maintaining  pub- 

1  In  a  literary  circle  where  false  quantity  in  a  Latin  quotation  was 
the  subject  of  criticism,  Macaulay  said,  “No  one  is  under  obligation  to 
quote:  hence,  when  one  does  quote,  he  is  bound  to  quote  correctly.”  No 
foreigner  is  under  obligation  to  utter  oracles  concerning  the  United  States: 
hence,  when  a  foreigner  volunteers  to  pronounce  or  prophesy,  he  is  bound 
to  understand  what  he  is  talking  about,  under  penalty  of  being  laughed 
at  for  a  pretentious  ignorance.  Even  the  Latter-day  Prophecies  fall  under 
this  rule. 


198  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


lie  order.  Even  this  was  deprecated  by  the  political  leaders  upon 
both  sides,  who  desired  that  the  election  should  be  decided  fairly, 
without  violence  or  fraud.  In  point  of  fact,  the  political  crisis  of 
1870  brought  out  in  fine  relief  the  merits  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  and  the  better  qualities  of  the  American  people.  It 
showed  how  marvellously  the  Constitution  has  provided  for  every 
emergency ;  that  even  should  the  popular  election  be  thwarted  by 
fraud,  or  declared  void  through  irregularity,  no  function  of  the  gov¬ 
ernment  would  be  suspended  even  for  a  moment.  There  being 
neither  President  nor  Vice-President,  the  President  of  the  Senate  — 
itself  a  permanent  body  —  would  at  once  become  the  executive 
head  of  the  nation  ;  and  the  Supreme  Court  is  at  hand  to  settle  any 
issues  of  fact.  The  crisis  exhibited  the  law'-abiding  character  of 
the  American  people.  There  were  days  of  excitement;  there  was, 
of  course,  more  or  less  loose  and  wild  talk  :  but  public  opinion  and 
the  press  were  united  in  demanding  that  all  legal  forms  should  be 
observed,  and  the  legal  result  accepted  and  obeyed.  The  practical 
good  sense  of  the  people  was  also  brought  out  by  this  peculiar  con¬ 
juncture  of  affairs.  It  was  felt  that  there  would  be  a  way  out  of  all 
complications,  as  there  had  been  in  like  complications  before.  At 
the  opening  of  the  twenty-sixth  Congress,  in  December,  1839,  two 
delegations  appeared,  contesting  the  seats  of  New  Jersey.  “  Now,  on 
first  assembling,  the  House  has  no  officers  ;  and  the  clerk  of  the  pre¬ 
ceding  Congress  acts,  by  usage,  as  chairman  of  the  body  till  a 
speaker  is  chosen.  On  this  occasion,  after  reaching  the  State  of 
New  Jersey,  the  acting  clerk  declined  to  proceed  in  calling  the  roll, 
and  refused  to  entertain  any  of  the  motions  which  were  made  for  the 
purpose  of  extricating  the  House  from  its  embarrassment.”  This 
went  on  for  four  days.  Then  John  Quincy  Adams  rose,  and  “  sub¬ 
mitted  a  motion  requiring  the  acting  clerk  to  proceed  in  calling  the 
roll.  Mr.  Adams  was  immediately  interrupted  by  a  burst  of  voices 
demanding,  ‘  How  shall  the  question  be  put  ?  Who  will  put  the  ques¬ 
tion  ? 5  The  voice  of  Mr.  Adams  was  heard  above  the  tumult,  ‘  I 
intend  to  put  the  question  myself.’”  1  That  stroke  of  common  sense 
solved  the  whole  difficulty.  And  such  confidence  has  the  American 
in  the  average  common  sense  of  his  fellow-citizens,  that,  during  the 
whole  presidential  crisis  of  1876,  gold  remained  quietly  and  steadily 
at  the  lowest  figure. 

Notorious  and  scandalous  cases  of  political  corruption  had  led 
European  critics  to  look  upon  American  politics  as  hopelessly  given 
over  to  venality.  Now,  here  was  a  case  in  which  only  one  vote  was 
needed  to  secure  the  triumph  of  a  great  and  powerful  party  ;  yet,  in 
all  the  weeks  of  uncertainty,  no  one  suggested  nor  imagined  that  this 
one  vote  could  be  bought.  Peculation  in  secret,  fraud  by  contrivance, 
there  has  been :  but,  in  this  case,  whoever  should  betray  his  trust 
would  certainly  be  known  ;  and  no  elector  could  have  the  hardihood 
to  face  the  scorn  and  obloquy  which  the  whole  American  people 
would  visit  upon  such  venal  treachery.  lie  must  flee  the  country,  or, 
like  Judas,  go  out  and  hang  himself.  Upon  the  whole,  the  Arneri- 

1  Eulogy  on  John  Quincy  Adams,  by  Edward  Everett. 


NOTE  ON  PBESIDENTIAL  ELECTIONS,  ETC.  199 

can  Constitution  and  the  American  people  have  nothing  to  fear  from 
the  judgment  of  history  upon  the  peculiar  tests  of  1876. 

At  the  same  time,  this  momentous  contest  has  given  emphasis  to 
three  measures  of  reform :  — 

(1.)  The  establishment  of  the  civil  service  upon  the  permanent 
basis  of  character  and  competence,  by  providing,  on  the  one  hand, 
that  a  civil  officer  shall  have  no  vote,  and  take  no  part,  in  elections, 
during  his  tenure  of  office  5  and,  on  the  other,  that  all  staff-officers  of 
the  government  be  placed  beyond  the  reach  of  party  favoritism,  in 
appointment  or  removal.  What  a  large,  persistent,  and  irritating 
element  of  excitement  would  be  withdrawn  from  the  presidential 
contest,  if  there  were  no  hungry  thousands  struggling  over  offices 
either  in  possession  or  in  expectation  ! 

(2.)  The  creation  of  permanent  boards  of  election,  whose  mem¬ 
bers  shall  have  no  vote,  and  shall  not  be  eligible  to  any  office,  shall  be 
well  paid,  and  be  liable  to  fine  and  imprisonment  for  any  malfeas¬ 
ance.  The  ridiculous  blunders  of  nominating  electors  who  were 
ineligible,  and  of  omitting  specific  legal  conditions,  and  the  suspicions 
of  fraudulent  counting,  would  be  obviated,  if  the  registration  of  voters 
and  the  counting  of  votes  were  the  duty  of  permanent  non-partisan 
officials  —  like  the  town-clerks  of  Scotland  —  who  had  the  fear  of  the 
states-prison  before  them  if  guilty  of  corruption  or  fraud. 

(3.)  The  withdrawal  of  the  National  Government  from  political 
contests  in  the  South.  In  the  treatment  of  the  South,  three  capital 
blunders  have  been  made,  from  the  mischief  of  which  the  whole  land 
is  still  suffering.  The  first  blunder  was  that  of  treating  with  the 
rebels  as  States,  instead  of  remanding  them  to  a  territorial  condi¬ 
tion,  from  which  new  commonwealths  should  have  emerged  one  by 
one  when  thoroughly  purified.  The  alternative  of  “  in  the  Union,  or 
under  it  ”  —  in  it  as  loyal  and  legalized  States,  or  under  it  as  terri¬ 
tories  forfeited  to  the  National  Government — was  originally  set  forth 
in  my  address  in  New  York,  of  July  4,  1801;  and  I  have  reason  to 
believe  that  Mr.  Lincoln  regretted  not  having  adopted  this  as  the 
solution  of  the  problems  of  slavery  and  of  reconstruction.  Of  course, 
it  is  too  late  now  to  retrieve  Mr.  Seward’s  cardinal  misconception  of 
the  situation.  The  next  blunder  was  that  of  admitting  to  suffrage 
the  emancipated  blacks,  with  no  conditions  of  time,  character,  or 
education.  That  mischief,  also,  seems  beyond  intervention. 

But  the  worst  blunder  of  all  has  been  the  attempt  of  the  General 
Government  to  do  in  the  States  of  the  South  what  it  might  properly 
have  done  in  Territories  of  the  United  States.  The  mischiefs  of 
this  policy  of  intervention  are  now  so  apparent,  that  the  good  sense 
of  the  country  demands  that  it  shall  be  abandoned.  The  cure  of  the 
South  must  be  left  to  time,  and  to  the  workings  of  self-interest  and 
political  ambition  under  the  normal  laws  of  human  nature.  If,  in 
some  districts,  whites  and  blacks  will  fight,  there  is  no  way  but  to  let 
them  fight  till  they  tire  of  anarchy  and  bloodshed.  But,  in  most  dis¬ 
tricts,  it  will  be  found  that  politicians,  left  to  themselves,  will  court 
the  negro  vote  upon  opposite  sides;  and  the  bugbear  of  a  “solid 
South  ”  will  vanish  before  the  election  of  1880. 


LECTURE  V. 

THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELF-DEVELOPMENT  AND 

ITS  BENEFITS  TO  MANKIND. 

ON  the  18th  June,  1875,  the  Crown  Prince  of  Prus¬ 
sia,  by  command  of  his  Majesty  the  Emperor,  an¬ 
nounced  his  purpose  to  erect  upon  the  heights  near 
Hakenberg,  in  East  Havelland,  a  monument  to  commemo¬ 
rate  the  victory  of  the  Great  Elector  Frederic  William 
at  Fehrbellin  on  the  same  day  of  June,  1675.  The  order 
ran,  “For  our  house,  for  our  land  and  people,  for  the 
German  fatherland,  this  great  and  memorable  day  of 
victory  marks  the  beginning  of  the  deliverance  of  German 
soil  from  foreign  rule ;  of  the  revival  of  Germany’s  renown 
in  arms,  and  her  peaceful  military  preparation  for  defen¬ 
sive  and  offensive  war;  of  the  fulfilment  of  those  rising 
duties  in  which  the  name  Brandenburg  found  and  ap¬ 
proved  its  German  call.  To  coming  generations  of  our 
house,  our  Prussian  people,  and  the  German  nation,  this 
monument  will  serve  through  all  time  as  a  remembrancer 
of  the  hard  beginnings,  the  long  struggles,  the  sterling 
virtues,  with  which  that  was  grounded  and  acquired, 
which  it  will  be  their  duty  and  their  honor  before  God 
and  men  to  hold,  to  guard,  and  to  strengthen.” 

Ihese  heroic  recollections  can  well  stir  the  pride  of 
every  1  russian,  and  move  to  admiration,  also,  every  one 
who  honors  patriotism  in  rulers  and  people,  and  can  re¬ 
spect  noble  achievement  and  substantial  progress  in  na¬ 
tions  other  than  his  own. 

Notwithstanding  many  re-actions,  reverses,  failures,  — 
such  as  led  Von  Schon  to  write  in  1808,  “  Fate  seems  to  think 
200 


THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELF-DEVELOPMENT.  201 

necessary  the  still  greater  humiliation  of  Prussia,”  1  — the 
State  that  the  Great  Elector  redeemed  from  Sweden,  that 
Frederic  I.  raised  to  the  rank  of  a  kingdom,  and  Frederic 
the  Great  to  a  power  on  the  Continent  strong  in  peace 
and  formidable  in  war,  and  which  the  present  reign  has 
advanced  to  be  almost  a  synonyme  of  military  supremacy, 
imperial  dominion,  scientific  culture,  and  the  Protestant 
faith,  —  this  Prussia  of  two  centuries  has  given  the  world 
the  most  perfect  example  of  that  form  of  political  society 
in  which  man  exists  for  the  State,  and  the  State  cares  for 
all  his  interests  in  return  for  the  control  of  all  his  powers. 
Though  she  has' ‘been  slow  in  attaining  to  constitutional 
freedom  and  popular  representation  in  government,  and  in 
regaining  or  restoring  the  remnants  of  local  government 
that  had  survived  the  Thirty-years’  war,  yet  Prussia  has 
produced  a  civil  service  remarkable  for  intelligence,  accu¬ 
racy,  fidelity,  and  honor ;  an  educational  system  unexam¬ 
pled  in  universality,  and  thoroughness  as  to  the  rudiments 
of  knowledge,  and  in  facilities  for  the  higher  attainments ; 
a  church  system  of  as  much  fairness  as  could  exist  without 
the  separation  of  Church  and  State  ;  a  judiciary,  which,  at 
least  since  Frederic  the  Great  took  in  hand  the  miller 
Arnold’s  lawsuit,  has  been  noted  for  exact  and  impartial 
justice  ;  an  economical  system,  which,  if  it  bears  hard  upon 
some,  bears  equally  upon  all,  and.  affords  small  chance  to 
rogues ;  and  a  military  system,  which,  if  war  must  be,  and 
peace  a  chronic  preparation  for  war,  is  the  most  complete  and 
efficient  organization  for  the  defence  of  the  nation.  Now, 
all  this  has  been  accomplished  by  one  small  State,  upon 
an  indifferent  soil,  which  dates  its  self-consciousness  as  a 
political  power  from  the  victory  of  Fehrbellin  in  1G75.  A*' 
people,  then,  is  to  be  estimated,  not  by  the  years  of  its  po¬ 
litical  life,  but. by  what  it  has  done  in  those  years  for  the 
improvement  of  society  and  the  behoof  of  mankind.  Rus¬ 
sia  has  seen  her  thousand  years,  and  in  that  millennium  has 
been  slowly  shaping  out  of  chaos  and  barbarism  a  civilized 
State  that  yet  may  civilize  the  barbarian  hordes  and  de¬ 
caying  empires  of  Middle  and  Eastern  Asia.  But,  in  all  ' 
these  ages,  what  contribution  has  Russia  made  to  the  true 
forces  of  modern  civilization,  or  the  science  of  political 

1  Papers  and  letters  of  Theodore  yon  Sclion,  Berlin,  Franz  Duncker. 


202  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

society?  Shall  I  speak  of  Spain  in  the  splendor  of  her 
Moorish  civilization,  in  the  glory  of  her  Christian  art, 
commerce,  colonization  ?  How  little  of  lasting  good  has 
she  given  to  mankind!  France  has  survived  her  more 
than  thousand  years,  and  was  for  long  the  foremost  race 
of  Christendom.  The  whole  world  is  her  debtor  in  litera¬ 
ture,  science,  and  art.  Her  revolution  gave  to  Europe  the 
secularization  of  political  society,  the  prerogative  and 
potency  of  peoples,  and  the  example  of  a  peasant  proprie¬ 
torship  in  the  soil.  But,  unhappily,  the  political  fermenta¬ 
tions  of  France  are  too  much  like  her  champagne,  — made 
for  foreign  export,  and  not  for  use  at  home  ;  and  she  has 
hitherto  failed  to  give  the  world  an  assuring  example  of  the 
combination  of  liberty  with  order,  of  private  right  with 
public  duty,  of  individual  independence  with  united  sov¬ 
ereignty.  Now,  it  is  the  proud  pre-eminence  of  the  United 
States  that  they  have  given  the  world  that  example  ;  and 
if  a  nation  is  to  be  estimated,  not  by  its  years,  but  by  its 
services  to  mankind,  and  if  the  service  is  to  be  estimated 
by  its  value  to  the  higher  sphere  of  political  science  and 
the  nobler  sphere  of  human  welfare,  may  not  America, 
while  owning  her  obligations  to  the  past,  feel  that  she  has 
rendered  a  just  equivalent  in  the  theory  and  example  of  a 
government  administered  by  the  will  of  the  people,  with¬ 
out  hereditary  or  military  power,  by  the  national  and 
spiritual  influence  of  a  constitution  without  physical  force, 
by  reverence  for  law  without  appeal  to  terror  ?  In  com¬ 
bining  freedom  with  authority,  in  making  religion  abso- 
•  lutely  free,  in  relying  upon  reason  and  conscience  —  “  the 
sober  second  thought  ”  of  the  people  —  for  support,  in  bal¬ 
ancing  all  the  powers  of  government,  and  making  the 
State  but  a  function  and  an  instrument  of  man,  the  United 
States  have  made  a  contribution  to  the  ethics  of  political 
society  that  cannot  be  measured  by  length  of  years.  The 
formulating  of  these  principles  dates  from  July  4,  1T76; 
but  the  principles  themselves,  in  the  stuff  and  training  of 
the  American  people,  are  older  than  Fehrbellin.  “  By  their 
fruits  ye  shall  know  them.” 

First  and  most  patent  of  the  fruits  of  American  life  is 
the  transformation  of  a  vast,  unexplored  wilderness  into 
the  abode  of  civilized  man.  How  extensive  this  conquest 


THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELF-DEVELOPMENT.  203 


of  Nature  lias  been,  I  have  shown  in  the  Fourth  Lecture  ; 
but  let  me  here  summarize,  that,  on  the  Atlantic,  the  United 
States  coast  stretches  from  25°  to  47°  north  latitude,  about 
1,500  miles  ;  on  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  froiu  81°  to  97°  west 
longitude,  about  1,100  miles;  on  the  Pacific,  fiom  33  to 
49°  north  latitude,  1100  miles;  to  which  is  to  be  added 
Alaska,  on  the  Arctic  Ocean,  and  that  its  area  in  round 
numbers  is  3,000  miles  by  1,200,  being  a  total  of  3,603,- 
886  square  miles.  “  Its  great  divisions  are  (1)  The  eastern 
seaboard,  and  the  Appalachian  ranges  which  press  so  close¬ 
ly  upon  it:  this  is  the  commercial  and  manufacturing 
region.  (^0  The  Great  Central  \  alley,  pre-eminently  the 
agricultural  region,  (o)  The  pastoral,  or  the  region  of  the 
plains.  (4)  The  mining  region,  or  the  Cordilleras.’  1  This 
vast  and  diversified  territory  American  enterprise  has 
wrested  from  the  wildness  of  Nature,  and  made  available 
to  mankind,  and  the  greater  part  of  it  within  the  present 
century.  To  the  superficial  observer,  this,  indeed,  may  in¬ 
dicate  nothing  more  than  a  material  civilization;  and  Car¬ 
lyle,  of  all  men,  was  once  betrayed  into  this  superficiality, 
twenty  years  ago  he  wnote,  u  Brag  not  yet  of  our  Ameri¬ 
can  cousins.  Their  quantity  of  cotton,  clollais,  industry, 
and  resources,  I  believe  to  be  almost  unspeakable  ;  but  I 
can  by  no  means  worship  the  like  of  these.  What  great 
human  soul,  what  great  thought,  what  great  noble  thing 
that  one  could  worship  or  loyally  admire,  has  yet  been 
produced  there?  None:  the  American  cousins  have  jet 
done  none  of  these  things.  What  have  they  done  ?  They 
have  doubled  their  population  every  twenty  years.”  2  Had 
Carlyle  then  never  read  a  page  of  that  greater  than 


1  Gen.  F.  A.  Walker.  T  .  .  ,  , .  . , 

2  Latter-Day  Pamphlets:  the  Present  Time.  It  is  amusing,  by  the  side 
of  this  to  read" Macaulay’s  lament  over  the  lack  of  “great  human  souls 
and  “  great  noble  things”  in  England :  “  What  a  nerveless,  milk-and-water 

set  the  young  fellows  of  the  present  day  are!  -  declares  that  there 

is  not  in  the  whole  House  of  Commons  any  stuff,  under  five  and  thirty, 
of  which  a  junior  lord  of  the  treasury  can  be  made  It  is  the  same  m 
literature,  and,  I  imagine,  at  the  bar.  It  is  odd  that  the  last  twenty-fh  e 
years,  which  have  witnessed  the  greatest  progress  ever  made  m  physical 
science  the  greatest  victories  ever  achieved  by  man  over  matter,  should 
‘have  produced  hardly  a  volume  that  will  be  remembered  m  1900,  and 
should  have  seen  the  breed  of  great  advocates  and  parliamentary  orators 
become  extinct  among  us.”  Macaulay  made  this  entry  m  his  diary 
March  9  1850.  Yet  Dickens  and  Carlyle  were  then  at  the  height,  of  then 
fame  But  we  know  that  Macaulay  had  no  great  opinion  of  Dickens, 
aud  he  seems  not  to  have  taken  the  trouble  to  read  Carlyle. 


204  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

“human  soul,”  Jonathan  Edwards?  nor  heard  the  story  of 
the  apostolic  Eliot  ?  Had  the  names  of  Otis,  Hancock, 
Sam  Adams,  George  Washington,  quite  faded  from  the 
canvas  of  great  souls  ?  Had  that  “  noble  thing,”  —  of  the 
delicate  and  cultured  Dr.  Kane  giving  his  fortune  and  his 
life  to  the  search  for  Sir  John  Franklin,  in  answer  to  the 
cry  of  the  wife  who  refused  to  be  a  widow,  —  had  this,  and 
the  many  like  examples  of  sell-sacrifice  for  science  and 
humanity,  never  met  the  eye  of  the  worshipper  of  heroes? 
TV  as  there  no  greatness  in  the  thought  of  Mills  to  compass 
the  globe  with  Christian  missions,  nor  heroism  in  the  men 
and  women  who  set  out  to  do  it  ?  Was  there  nothing  that 
one  could  u  loyally  admire  ”  in  the  little  bands  of  cultivated 
men  who  assumed  the  hardships  of  frontier  life,  that  they 
might  make  the  whole  land  Christian,  and  who  did  it? 
Or  was  there  not  enough  of  fight  in  such  heroism  to  satisfy 
the  worshipper  of  power  ?  Carlyle,  indeed,  predicted  that 
America’s  battle  was  44  yet  to  fight.”  44  America,  too,  will 
have  to  strain  its  energies  in  quite  other  fashion  than 
this ;  to  crack  its  sinews,  and  all  but  break  its  heart,  as  the 
rest  of  us  have  had  to  do,  in  thousand-fold  wrestle  with 
the .  pythons  and  mud-demons,  before  it  can  become  a 
habitation  for  the  gods.”  But  when  that  day  of  agony  did 
come,  and  the  nation  strained  the  thews  of  war,  but 
would  not  44  break  its  heart  ”  so  long  as  it  had  a  dollar  or 
a  life  to  give  to  the  44  great  thought,”  the  44 noble  thing” 
of  holding  a  continent  for  law,  order,  government,  con¬ 
stitutional.  freedom,  then  where  was  Mr.  Carlyle?  Be¬ 
cause  of  his  failure  to  discern  the  really  potent  forces  in  a 
civilization  of  which  the  axe,  plough,  and  hammer  were  but 
passing  signs,  he  failed  to  fulfil  his  own  promise  to  44  wish 
America  strength. for  her  battle,”  and  victory  through  her 
•  But,  having  got  on  without  help  or  hinderance 
from  these  44  latter-day  ”  prophecies,  America  gently  covers 
their  nakedness  as  she  brings  to  the  prophet  her  octoge¬ 
narian  crown,  regretting  only  that  he  has  not  suffered  her 
to  twine  with  it  those  two  most  bright  and  lasting  laurels 
—  love  of  liberty,  and  faith  in  man. 

Ko  where  is  there  more  need  of  Carlyle’s  own  protest 
against  shams  than  in  dealing  with  that  sham  philosophy 
that  would  estimate  the  civilization  of  a  people  by  its 


THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELF-DEVELOPMENT.  205 

acres  of  industry  and  its  millions  of  workers,  and  insist 
that  this  is  simply  material.  Is  there,  then,  nothing  intel¬ 
lectual,  nothing  moral,  nothing  scientific,  nothing  heroic,  in 
all  this  stir  and  push  in  our  day,  —  this  rivalry  .of  English, 
Germans,  Americans,  for  the  exploration  of  Africa,  and  the 
introduction  of  civilization  into  the  heart  of  that  continent  ? 

Is  the  mastery  of  the  wilds  of  Nature,  and  the  taming  of 
her  wilder  races,  the  opening  the  resources  of  a  continent 
to  the  commerce  of  the  world,  the  improving  of  rivers.,  the 
building  of  canals,  railways,  telegraphs,  post-roads,  —  is  all 
this  to  be  rated  as  but  material  and  mercenary?  May  there 
not  be  thought  in  it  all,  may  there  not  even  be  heart  in  it 
all,  for  the  highest  good  of  man?  What  story  of  African 
exploration  exhibits  more  of  enduring  heroism  than  was 
shown  by  Lewis  and  Clark,  and  by  I  remont,  as  they  forced 
their  trackless  way  across  the  American  continent  to  the 
Pacific?  And  where  has  science  won  worthier  trophies 
than  in  the  surveying  expeditions  of  that  vast  interior  ? 

It  were  most  unjust  to  Germany,  a  most  superficial  esti¬ 
mate  of  her  worth  in  history,  to  charge  her  with  lack  of 
enterprise  or  of  humanitary  zeal,  because,  shattered  as  she 
was  by  the  Thirty-years’  war,  and  surrounded  by  hostile 
fires,  she  concentrated  her  energies  upon  her  internal 
development, — the  construction  of  society,  —  with  little 
thought  of  a  world-mission.  She  did  the  work  that  was 
given  her  to  do;  and  by  the  self-development  in  literature, 
science,  and  art,  to  which  she  was  so  much  the  more  con¬ 
strained  by  lack  of  opportunity  for  political  and  commer¬ 
cial  expansion,  she  has  fulfilled  a  mission  to  mankind,  and 
fitted  herself  for  one  yet  higher.  To  America  was  given  ✓ 
the  mission  of  redeeming  a  waste  continent,  —  this  to  be 
accomplished  first  of  all ;  but  what  she  has  done  in  sub¬ 
duing  the  elementary  forces  of  Nature  has  been  done  at 
every  step  for  the  benefit  of  mankind.  I  rom  first  to  last, 
hers  was  the  march  of  a  civilized  people,  of  a  Christian 
people,  who  planted  as  they  went  the  institutions  of  con¬ 
stitutional  freedom,  and  carried  with  them,  or  brought 
soon  after  in  their  train,  the  Lible,  the  school,  the  church, 
and  the  home.  All  that  they  conquered  for  themselves * 
they  offered  with  open  heart  and  hand  to  the  whole  world. 
It  was  hardly  mercenary  to  provide  a  home  for  the 


206  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

world’s  poor;  it  was  hardly  materialistic  to  offer  secure 
and  regulated  liberty  to  the  world’s  oppressed.  One  mar¬ 
vels  that  Carlyle  had  not  discerned  in  this  some  token  of 
that  “  new  and  brighter  spiritual  era  that  is  slowly  evolving 
itself  for  all  men.”  1 

Take  the  strongest  possible  example  of  the  materialistic 
and  mercenary  in  our  civilization,  and  we  shall  see  how 
fast  the  spiritual  and  moral  have  overtaken  and  are  over¬ 
mastering  it.  In  1848  the  news  that  gold  had  been  found 
in  California  spread  like  wildfire  through  the  Eastern 
States,  and  kindled  such  a  rage  for  emigration  as  even 
America  had  not  before  witnessed.  Everywhere  there  was 
a  movement  toward  the  land  of  promise, — many  by  the 
slow  toilsome  journey  in  wagons,  on  horseback,  and  afoot, 
across  the  continent ;  more  by  the  long  and  doubtful  voy¬ 
age  in  sailing-vessels  around  Cape  Horn.  Naturally  the 
enterprising  and  hardy  were  the  first  to  go ;  many  of  the 
shiftless  also.  Some  went  for  naked  love  of  gold,  counting 
on  sudden  fortune  ;  some  from  love  of  adventure,  or  rest¬ 
less  love  of  change ;  many  to  better  their  condition,  hoping, 
by  a  few  years  of  toil,  to  lay  the  foundation  of  a  lasting 
prosperity.  A  large  percentage  of  the  bad  elements  of 
society  was  in  the  first  emigration  to  California.  Many 
went  who  were  no  longer  wanted  at  the  East,  or  were  too 
much  wanted  by  the  police  ;  and  many  also  went  only  to 
learn  and  show  how  bad  they  could  become  when  freed 
from  the  restraints  of  settled  communities.  It  was  a 
dreadful  medley  at  the  first ;  and  gambling,  cheating, 
thieving,  murder,  drunkenness,  lawlessness,  and  every  vice, 
ran  riot,  so  that  a  man  held  his  purchase  of  life  by  the 
bowie-knife  and  the  revolver.  It  was  a  sad  world-spectacle 
of  the  nineteenth  century ;  but  it  was  a  werZcZ-spectacle 
of  human  depravity,  not  a  special  exhibition  of  American 
life. 

Already,  in  1850,  California  showed  a  population  of 
22,000.  foreigners,  or  nearly  one-fourth  in  a  total  of  92,- 
000 ;  in  I860,.  146,000  foreigners  in  a  population  of 
878, 000;  and  in  1870,  a  foreign  population  of  210,000 
against  350,000  native  born.  To-day,  in  the  city  of  San 
Francisco,  one-lialf  the  population,  i.e.  73,719,  are  of  for- 

1  Signs  of  the  Times. 


THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELF-DEVELOPMENT.  207 

eign  birth,  of  whom  12,000  are  Chinese,  14,0.00  Germans, 
and  33,000  English  and  Irish.  California  should  be  esti¬ 
mated  in  the  light  of  these  facts.  In  her  origin  she  was 
an  anomaly.  Stragglers  for  fortune,  adventurers,  despe¬ 
radoes  from  both  hemispheres,  thrown  suddenly  and  pro¬ 
miscuously  together,  nearly  three  thousand  miles  distant 
from  the  seat  of  government,  with  the  desert  and  the 
Sierras  between,  with  no  time  as  yet  for  an  efficient  civil 
organization,  and  no  adequate  military  force  at  hand,  — 
this  was  indeed  a  condition  of  things  in  which  human 
nature  could  show  its  common  depravity,  but  for  which 
no  people  nor  institutions  could  fairly  be  held  responsible. 
But  what  happened?  and  what  has  come  of  it?  From 
this  anarchy  and  chaos  we  presently  see  society  emerging, 
and  demanding  safety,  order,  law.  Serious,  earnest  men, 
shrewd,  practical  men,  staid,  good  men,  will  make  Califor¬ 
nia  their  home,  and  have  it  tit  for  homes  for  their  wives 
and  children.  There  is  no  home,  no  civilization,  without 
woman ;  and,  in  the  first  rush  for  gold,  she  had  been  left 
behind.  But,  now  that  woman  is  looked  for  in  California, 
the  ruffian  and  the  rowdy,  the  loafer  and  the  blackleg,  must 
get  out  of  the  way.  Order  comes  to  the  front  as  a  Vigi¬ 
lance  Committee  ;  justice  is  swift  and  terrible,  but  sure  ;  a 
certain  “herculean  labor  and  divine  fidelity,”  Mr.  Carlyle, 
“  draining  the  Stygian  swamp,  and  making  it  a  fruitful 
field.”  1  And  what  came  of  this?  A  State  that  refused  to 
admit  slavery ;  a  State  that  held  loyally  to  the  Union 
during  the  war,  and  gave  enormous  sums  to  the  Sanitary 
Commission,  though  she  might  have  set  up  an  independ¬ 
ent  empire  of  the  Pacific  ;  a  State  that  kept  her  cur¬ 
rency  and  her  faith  under  the  wrenchings  of  war  and  of 
financial  disaster;  a  State  that  pushed  her  railway  east¬ 
ward  up  the  slopes  of  the  mountains  to  link  her  destiny 
writh  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi  and  the  Atlantic  coast. 
And  how  came  this  to  be?  Along  with  the  medley  of 
that  first  emigration  went  a  leaven  of  religious  faith,  — 
bands  who  went  forth  from  the  bosom  of  churches 
consecrated  by  prayer,  and  missionaries  ready  to  “  endure 
hardness  as  good  soldiers  of  Christ.”  Some  carried 
with  them  the  framework  of  churches  to  be  set  up  on 

i  The  New  Downing  Street. 


208  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

arriving;  but  at  first  both  churches  and  schools  were 
built  upon  the  sand,  so  suddenly  did  population  shift 
with  fresh  discoveries  of  gold.  In  April,  1848,  a  public 
school  was  opened  in  a  tent  at  San  Francisco.  The 
next  year,  a  State  Constitution  was  formed ;  and,  in 
this  community  of  gold-hunters,  provision  was  made  by 
law  for  the  proceeds  of  500,000  acres  of  land  as  a  perpet¬ 
ual  school-fund.  In  1850,  California  had  8  schools,  7 
teachers,  219  pupils ;  in  1860,  598  schools,  816  teachers, 
28,654  pupils;  in  1870,  1,548  schools,  2,444  teachers, 
85,507  pupils.  Add  to  these  private  schools,  and  the 
number  of  pupils  is  100,000,  the  yearly  cost  $2,500,000, 
the  value  of  school-property  over  $4,000,000.  Of  incipi¬ 
ent  colleges  and  seminaries  the  State  has  even  more  than 
enough,  and  her  young  university  may  yet  become  the 
light  of  the  Pacific  coast.  Her  topographical  survey,  with 
the  memoirs  of  Whitney,  Clarence  King,  and  others,  is  of 
high  scientific  value;  and  her  “Lick”  Observatory  will 
rival  the  best  of  the  Old  World.  Her  literature  has  pro¬ 
duced  150  volumes  of  native  birth ;  and  among  these  are 
the  names  of  Bret  Harte,  Joaquin  Miller,  and  Herbert 
LI.  Bancroft,  whose  great  work  on  the  “Native  Paces  of 
the  Pacific  States”  has  accomplished  for  the  prehistoric 
times  of  America  what  George  Bancroft’s  has  done  for 
the  era  of  Christian  civilization.  In  1850,  California  had 
28  churches;  in  1860,  293;  and  in  1870,  643  churches, 
with  a  property  valued  at  $7,404,235,  —  some  of  them  with 
buildings  that  would  do  credit  to  any  city  of  the  New 
World  or  the  Old.  One  can  by  no  means  claim  for  Califor¬ 
nia  a  social  paradise  corresponding  with  her  climate :  but 
she  has  elements  of  culture  that  are  unsurpassed ;  homes 
of  taste,  literature,  science,  music,  art ;  and  the  best  musi¬ 
cians  and  lecturers  of  Europe  find  their  reward  in  the 
appreciative  circles  of  that  far-off  coast.  Carlyle  once 
warned  us  that  we  confounded  the  big  with  the  great. 
We  took  the  warning  in  good  part,  and  gave  heed  to  it; 
and  now  the  philosopher  who  can  look  beneath  the  sur¬ 
face  sees  in  this  triumph  of  education  and  religion  over 
Mammon  seated  on  his  mountains  of  gold  one  “  great, 
noble  thing”  that  he  can  “  loyally  admire.” 

There  was  a  time  when  one  of  our  own  prophets 1  lifted 


1  Dr.  Horace  Buslmell. 


THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELF-DEVELOPMENT.  200 

up  tlie  warning,  that,  in  the  rapid  roll  of  emigration  west¬ 
ward,  “  barbarism  was  our  first  danger :  ”  the  loose  and 
lawless  elements  of  society  drifted  to  the  frontier ;  and 
even  decent,  honest  men  grew  coarse  and  vulgar  in  the 
constant  struggle  with  Nature  for  a  bare  subsistence. 
Besides,  there  is  something  demoralizing  in  a  life  divided 
between  attacks  of  the  shakes  and  the  Sioux.  That 
frontier-life,  with  its  rough  cabins,  rough  men,  rough  sports, 
rough  drinks,  rough  fights,  would  have  sunk  to  downright 
barbarism  had  it  only  been  let  alone  long  enough  to  act 
itself  out ;  but  it  was  not  let  alone.  No  garrisons  were 
sent  to  check  and  tame  it,  as  Russia  holds  her  frontiers  in 
Asia ;  but  behind  this  frontier-life,  pushing  it  forward, 
was  a  Christian  civilization,  to  which  these  rough-handed 
men  were  but  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water,  pre¬ 
paring  in  the  wilderness  a  way  for  its  coming.  Since  the 
Pacific  coast  has  checked  the  movement  westward,  and  the 
extinction  of  slavery  has  suppressed  the  lust  of  conquest 
southward,  the  old  land-fever  has  abated  ;  pioneer-life  is 
hemmed  in  between  two  cordons  of  settled  communities ; 
and  though  its  traces  linger  here  and  there,  and  in  some 
places  it  has  left  upon  society  an  evil  stain,  it  is  steadily 
vanishing  before  the  moral  forces  of  civilization.  The 
march  of  American  emigration  across  the  continent  has 
no  analogy  with  the  old  westward  migration  of  Oriental 
tribes.  It  has  ever  been  the  advance  of  a  civilized  and 
Christian  people  to  secure  the  continent  to  the  highest 
form  of  society.  Bryant  has  pictured  it  in  his  prairies  :  — 

“  I  hear 

The  sound  of  that  advancing  multitude 

Which  soon  shall  fill  these  deserts.  From  the  ground 

Come  up  the  laugh  of  children,  the  soft  voice 

Of  maidens,  and  the  sweet  and  solemn  hymn 

Of  sabbath-  worshippers.” 

Every  new  State,  as  it  has  been  organized,  has  made  pro¬ 
vision  for  the  education  of  children  at  the  public  cost. 
We  still  have  need  of  the  obligatory  school-system  of 
Prussia,  —  in  this  feature  the  best  in  the  world.  But  in 
the  United  States  the  people  have  voluntarily  cared  for 
education  to  such  a  degree,  that  over  seven  million  chil- 


210  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


dren  are  enrolled  in  the  public  schools ;  and  these  schools 
have  an  income,  from  endowment,  taxation,  and  public 
funds,  of  sixty-five  million  dollars.  Some  forty  years  ago, 
this  people  of  “  cotton-crops  and  Indian-corn  and  dollars  ” 
had  a  surplus  of  several  millions  in  the  national  treasury. 
What  did  they  do  with  it?  They  did  not  hoard  it  in 
vaults  as  a  provision  for  war,  nor  bury  it  in  mounds  and 
fortifications.  They  did  not  speculate  with  it  to  win  more, 
nor  use  it  to  purchase  other  lands.  They  put  it  into 
funds  for  schools,  that  the  woodman,  the  fisherman,  the 
miner,  might  learn  to  read  “  Sartor  Resartus.”  This  is  no 
suggestion  of  fancy.  Two  of  the  prettiest  episodes  of 
American  working-life  are  told  by  two  of  the  most  human 
ot  our  poets.  One  is  a  scene  that  Lowell  witnessed  in  a 
railroad-car,  where  a  knot  of  working-men  crowded  to¬ 
gether  to  listen  to  a  comrade  :  — 

“  He  spoke  of  Burns  :  men  rude  and  rough 
Pressed  round  to  hear  the  praise  of  one 
Whose  heart  was  made  of  manly,  simple  stuff, 

As  homespun  as  their  own. 

And,  when  he  read,  they  forward  leaned, 

Drinking,  with  thirsty  hearts  and  ears, 

His  brook-like  songs  whom  glory  never  weaned 
From  humble  smiles  and  tears. 

Slowly  there  grew  a  tender  awe, 

Sun-like,  o’er  faces  brown  and  hard, 

As  if  in  him  who  read  they  felt  and  saw 
Some  presence  of  the  bard. 

It  was  a  sight  for  sin  and  wrong 
And  slavish  tyranny  to  see,  — 

A  sight  to  make  our  faith  more  pure  and  strong 
In  high  humanity. 


All  that  hath  been  majestical 
In  life  or  death,  since  time  began, 

Is  native  in  the  simple  heart  of  all,  — 
The  angel  heart  of  man. 

And  thus  among  the  untaught  poor 
Greal;  deeds  and  feelings  find  a  home, 
That  cast  in  shadow  all  the  golden  lore 
Of  classic  Greece  and  Itcme.” 


THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELF-DEVELOPMENT.  211 

Tlie  other  is  Bret  Harte’s  picture  of  the  story  of  Little 
Nell  in  the  miner’s  camp,  his  own  offering  to  the  tomb 
of  Dickens :  — 

“  And  then,  while  round  them  shadows  gathered  faster, 

And  as  the  firelight  fell, 

He  read  aloud  the  book  wherein  the  master 
Had  writ  of  ‘  Little  Nell.’ 

Perhaps  ’twas  boyish  fancy ;  for  the  reader 
Was  youngest  of  them  all : 

But,  as  he  read,  from  clustering  pine  and  cedar 
A  silence  seemed  to  fall. 

The  fir-trees,  gathering  closer  in  the  shadows, 

Listened  in  every  spray  ; 

While  the  whole  camp  with  Nell  on  English  meadows 
Wandered  and  lost  their  way. 

•  •  ••••••• 

Lost  is  that  camp,  and  wasted  all  its  fire, 

And  he  who  wrought  that  spell. 

Ah  !  towering  pine  and  stately  Kentish  spire, 

Ye  have  one  tale  to  tell. 

Lost  is  that  camp;  but  let  its  fragrant  story 
Blend  with  the  breath  that  thrills 

With  hop-vines’  incense  all  the  pensive  glory 
That  fills  the  Kentish  hills. 

And,  on  that  grave  where  English  oak  and  holly 
And  laurel  wreaths  intwine, 

Deem  it  not  all  a  too  presumptuous  folly 
This  spray  of  Western  pine.” 

That  coarse,  homespun  civilization  that  Dickens  held 
up  to  ridicule,  true  to  the  inborn  gentlemanliness  of  its 
nature,  made  him  the  honored  guest  of  the  camp-fire,  and 
paid  to  his  genius  the  tribute  of  honest  manly  feeling, 
with  more  than  critics’  praise.  Indeed,  the  United  States 
in  re  Dickens  is  a  faithful  picture  of  American  character 
and  life.  No  doubt  we  made  fools  of  ourselves  in  the  first 
reception  of  Dickens ;  and  he  avenged  himself  of  our  gush¬ 
ing,  boisterous,  hand-shaking  welcome,  by  caricaturing  our 
foibles,  ridiculing  our  manners,  ignoring  our  finer  tastes, 
and  suppressing  our  virtues.  But  the  folly  was  not  all  on 
one  side.  It  is  an  offence  against  truth  for  a  traveller,  in 
describing  a  foreign  people,  to  take  a  lot  of  incidents,  each 


212 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


of  which  may  he  true  in  itself,  and  put  these  together  so 
as  to  make  a  false  story,  and  give  that  out  as  the  whole 
story.  It  is  an  offence  against  delicacy  to  caricature  cer¬ 
tain  peculiarities  of  manners  in  a  people  so  as  to  disparage 
their  true  refinement  in  the  arts  and  amenities  of  life. 
Suppose  my  sense  of  good-breeding  is  offended  by  the  free 
use  of  pocket-combs  and  pocket-handkerchiefs,  the  loud 
clamor  of  voices,  and  the  uncouth  handling  of  knives  and 
toothpicks,  at  a  German  table  d'hote:  it  would  mark  ill- 
breeding  in  me  to  deride  the  culture  of  a  people  because 
they  do  not  meet  my  notions  of  table  etiquette.  Worst 
of  all,  it  is  an  offence  against  honor  to  accept  one’s  hospi¬ 
tality,  and  then  publish  derisive  comments  upon  the  host. 
All  these  offences  Mr.  Dickens  was  guilty  of  in  his 
44  American  Notes”  and  in  44  Martin  Chuzzlewit.”  1  Since 
his  partial  revelation  of  himself  in  44  David  Copperfield,” 
and  the  full  unveiling  of  his  life  by  Mr.  Forster,  we  know 
better  how  to  apologize  for  offences  in  1842  that  we  so 
heartily  condoned  by  the  second  reception  in  1867.  In 
early  life,  Dickens  had  no  opportunity  of  mingling  with 
gentlemen,  or  of  observing  and  acquiring  what  belongs  to 
the  proprieties  of  social  intercourse.  And  how  seldom, 
indeed,  in  all  his  writings,  does  one  find  the  true  lady  or 
the  perfect  gentleman  !  Suddenly  his  genius  dazzled  the 
world,  and  its  reflection  dazed  his  own  brain.  Lifted  into 
genteel  society  before  he  was  ripe  for  it,  his  head  was 
turned  with  vanity  ;  and  in  this  mood,  at  thirty,  he  went 
to  the  United  States,  the  guest  of  a  nation  already  made 
wild  over  the  44  Pickwick  Papers,”  44  Oliver  Twist,”  44  Nich¬ 
olas  Nickleby,”  the  44  Boz  Sketches,”  44  Old  Curiosity 
Shop,”  and  44  Barnaby  Budge.”  Dickens  was  even  more 
widely  read  and  more  intensely  popular  in  America  than 
in  England.  His  name  was  a  household  word.*  In  my 
college  set,  every  fellow  was  dubbed  with  some  title  out  of 


1  Macaulay  did  not  disguise  his  contempt  for  the  American  Notes.  He 
wrote  to  Napier,  declining  to  review  the  hook  in  the  Edinburgh.  “I 
cannot  praise  it,  though  it  contains  a  few  lively  dialogues.  and  descrip¬ 
tions;  for  it  seems  to  me  to  be,  on  the  whole,  a  failure.  It  is  written  like 
the  worst  parts  of  Humphrey’s  Clock.  What  is  meant  to  be  easy  and 
sprightly  is  vulgar  and  flippant,  as  in  the  first  two  pages..  What  is  meant 
to  be  line  is  a  great  deal  too  fine  for  me,  as  the  description  of  the  Fall  of 
Niagara.  ...  In  short,  I  pronounce  the  book,  in  spite  of  some  gleams  of 
genius,  at  once  frivolous  and  dull.” 


THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELF-DEVELOPMENT.  213 


“  Pickwick  :  ”  we  even  had  our  Mr.  Winkle,  who  showed 
himself  a  44  humbug  ”  on  the  skating-pond.  I  received 
early  copies  of  the  44  Papers  ”  from  England  ;  and  my  room 
was  crowded  for  readings  and  extemporized  actings,  that 
shook  the  college-halls  with  mirth.  Not  a  student  but 
would  have  run  miles  to  see  and  cheer  the  author.  Just 
such  boyish  enthusiasm  seized  upon  the  nation  when  it 
was  known  that  Dickens  was  coming.  Well,  he  came, 
expecting  to  be  received  like  the  Great  Mogul ;  and  we 
took  him  for  a  hale  fellow,  —  a  sort  of  cross  between  Mr. 
Pickwick  and  Sam  Weller, — and  showed  very  little  re¬ 
spect  for  his  privacy.  We  ran  after  him  in  the  streets; 
we  blocked  the  entrance  to  his  hotel ;  we  gave  him  balls, 
which,  in  the  promiscuous  jamming  of  all  sorts  of  people 
and  of  toilets  that  one  would  not  care  to  come  so  near  to 
again,  were  like  subscription-balls  at  the  Opera  House  in 
Berlin ;  and,  worst  of  all,  we  inflicted  upon  him  a  huge 
quantity  of  American  after-dinner  eloquence.  All  this 
was  very  naughty  of  us,  and  very  silly ;  yet  it  was  an 
honest  enthusiasm  for  genius.  But  Mr.  Dickens,  alas !  had 
come  to  America,  not  to  enhance  his  praise,  but  to  enrich 
his  pocket.  Well,  we  owed  him  much;  and  it  was  shabby 
of  us  not  to  have  paid  it.  But  we  were  not  altogether 
guilty.  There  was  no  international  copyright  (which  is  a 
monstrous  wrong  to  authors)  ;  and  some  American  publish¬ 
ers  had  pirated  Dickens’s  books,  just  as  English  publishers 
since  have  re-issued  American  books,  by  wholesale,  without 
following  the  improved  method  of  respectable  American 
houses  in  giving  a  handsome  honorarium  in  lieu  of  legal 
copyright.1  Had  Mr.  Dickens  trusted  to  our  sense  of 
honor,  we  should  have  sent  him  home  with  such  a  national 
testimonial  as  never  author  had  received ;  or,  better  still, 
our  leading  men  would  have  used  his  popularity  for  urging 

1  Three  books  of  mine  were  reprinted  in  England  by  different  publish¬ 
ers,  neither  of  whom  had  the  grace  to  send  me  even  a  presentation-copy. 
Once,  in  London,  I  went  to  a  house  that  had  reprinted  one  of  my  books ;  and, 
after  buying  half  a  dozen  copies  of  this  pirated  edition,  I  introduced  my¬ 
self  as  the  author  to  the  publisher,  who  was  standing  by.  With  some  con¬ 
fusion,  he  offered  to  present  me  with  the  copies  I  had  just  paid  for;  but  I 
declined  that  sort  of  recognition  of  an  author’s  rights,  and  never  received 
any  other.  Still  the  English  law  of  copyright  is  more  just  and  liberal  than 
the  American;  and  some  English  publishers  follow  the  example  of  the 
more  honorable  American  publishers,  in  paying  a  royalty  to  a  foreign 
author  who  has  not  secured  a  copyright. 


214  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


a  law  of  international  copyright.  But  Dickens  abused  the 
hospitality  of  his  public  and  private  entertainers  by  lec¬ 
turing  us  on  our  shortcomings  in  this  matter ;  by  babbling 
of  his  claims,  even  to  the  extent  of  using  his  welcome  at 
Washington  in  urging  that  Congress  should  pass  a  copy¬ 
right  law  for  the  protection  of  foreign  authors.  On  re¬ 
turning  to  London,  Mr.  Dickens  denied  that  he  “  had  gone 
to  America  as  a  kind  of  missionary  in  the  cause  of  inter¬ 
national  copyright.”  1  Of  course  he  did  not  go  as  a  mis¬ 
sionary  for  others,  or  for  a  cause.  His  philanthropy,  public 
spirit,  or  sense  of  justice,  did  not  take  on  the  “  mission¬ 
ary”  type:  but  he  did  look  out  for  number  one ;  he  did 
talk  copyright  everywhere,  and  make  everybody  under¬ 
stand  that  he  wanted  to  be  paid  for  his  books,  —  as  most 
assuredly  he  ought  to  have  been.  Now,  though  the  Ameri¬ 
can  people  have  a  weakness  for  money  and  the  possessors 
of  money,  they  thoroughly  despise  a  man  who  avows  that 
he  is  after  money  in  all  that  he  says  and  does.  Their  re¬ 
gard  for  Mammon  may  be  coarse  and  vulgar,  but  is  not  apt 
to  be  mean  and  mercenary :  so,  when  we  found  what  Mr. 
Dickens  was  after,  we  were  vexed  and  disgusted,  and  we 
dropped  him.  He  went  home  mortified  and  mad,  and 
abused  us.  Some  things  he  said  of  us  were  true  as  well  as 
funny,  and  we  laughed  at  ourselves  ;  some  were  sharp,  but 
merited,  and  in  Chinese  fashion  we  thanked  the  corrector, 
while  we  felt  the  rod :  but  a  great  part  of  his  caricature 
was  so  ludicrously  libellous,  that  the  author  stood  impaled 
in  his  OAvn  pillory,  and  there  we  pelted  him.  It  had  not 
occurred  to  Mr.  Dickens  how  he  depreciated  himself  as  an 
author  in  sneering  at  a  people  who  showed  their  literary 
taste  by  buying  his  books  by  the  million ;  but,  when  he 
saw  himself  served  up  in  his  own  characters,  he  rather 
wished  he  had  let  them  alone.  Moreover,  American  pub¬ 
lishers  had  made  him  voluntary  proposals  of  a  percentage 
on  sales ;  but,  alas !  both  sales  and  fame  had  collapsed 
together.  Mr.  Forster  fills  his  twenty-seventh  chapter 
with  “  Chuzzlewit  Disappointments,”  which  he  tries  to 
explain  away ;  but  he  says  of  the  Americans,  “  Though 
an  angry,  they  are  a  good-humored  and  a  very  placable 
people.”  It  was  not  long  before  we  began  to  feel,  that,  in 

1  Eorsters  Life,  cliap.  xxvi. 


THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELF-DEVELOPMENT.  215 

pouting  at  Dickens,  we  were  punishing  ourselves.  We 
wanted  to  laugh  with  him  once  more,  and  so  began  to 
laugh  even  at  his  exaggerated  pictures  of  American  soci¬ 
ety.  A  quarter  of  a  century  passed  by :  Mr.  Dickens  had 
grown  more  to  the  manners  of  a  gentleman,  and  had 
ripened  and  mellowed  under  his  experiences  of  life.  The 
American  people,  too,  had  improved  in  manners  and  cul¬ 
ture,  not,  however,  because  of  Mr.  Dickens’s  castigations, 
but  through  the  upward  working  of  those  moral  and  spirit¬ 
ual  forces  that  underlie  our  civilization,  and  which  Mr. 
Dickens  had  neither  the  training  to  discover,  nor  the  apti¬ 
tude  to  appreciate.  Ruskin  has  put  forth  an  ideal  society 
in  his  u  Company  of  St.  George,”  in  which  the  best  cul¬ 
ture  in  manners,  art,  and  nobleness,  shall  not  only  be  asso¬ 
ciated  with,  but  grow  out  of,  the  tilling  of  the  soil  and 
other  homely  manual  labor  ;  and  he  has  even  sought  to 
induce  his  art-students  at  Oxford  to  take  their  physical 
exercise  in  trundling  the  barrow,  and  handling  the  spade. 
If,  now,  one  should  come  upon  a  squad  of  such  art-laborers 
in  their  working-dress,  and  rate  their  culture  by  the  com¬ 
post  they  were  using  as  a  fertilizer,  he  would  be  as  wise  as 
Dickens  was,  when,  in  1042,  he  estimated  the  capacity  of 
Americans  for  culture  by  seeing  them  yet  in  the  sweat 
and  toil  of  their  material  fight  with,  yes,  and  their  most 
“material”  conquest  over,  Nature.  Well,  in  1867  the 
two  parties  met  again.  Mr.  Dickens  had  come  to  repair 
his  fortunes  by  public  readings.  The  American  people 
went  to  greet  him  as  a  benefactor,  and  to  enjoy  the  intel¬ 
lectual  treat  of  hearing  the  master  interpret  his  works. 
At  first,  he  was  a  little  nervous  as  to  the  reception  he 
might  meet.  But  the  tone  of  the  American  people  was 
faithfully  expressed  by  a  New-York  journal,  which  said, 
“  Even  in  England,  Dickens  is  less  known  than  here  ;  and, 
of  the  millions  here  who  treasure  every  word  he  has 
written,  there  are  tens  of  thousands  who  would  make  a 
large  sacrifice  to  see  and  hear  the  man  who  has  made 
happy  so  many  hours.  Whatever  sensitiveness  there  once 
was  to  adverse  or  sneering  criticism,  the  lapse  of  a  quarter 
of  a  century,  and  the  profound  significance  of  a  great 
war,  have  modified  or  removed.” 

The  tickets  to  his  readings  were  at  a  high  figure ;  but 


216  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

the  rush  to  hear  him  was  unprecedented.  He  said  of  his 
audiences,  “  American  people  are  so  accustomed  to  take 
care  of  themselves,  that  one  of  these  immense  audiences 
will  fall  into  their  places  with  an  ease  amazing  to  a 
frequenter  of  St.  J ames’s  Hall ;  and  the  certainty  with 
which  they  are  all  in  before  I  go  on  is  a  very  acceptable 
mark  of  respect.”  He  often  wrote  of  his  reception  as 
magnificent ;  his  audiences  as  fine,  appreciative,  swayed  by 
every  sentiment  and  emotion  of  the  piece,  — moved  now  to 
laughter,  and  now  to  tears.  This  was  the  people  whom  he 
had  derided.  They  came  to  fill  his  heart  with  love,  his 
cars  with  applause,  his  pockets  with  gold.  They  decked 
his  table  with  the  choicest  flowers ;  they  honored  his 
birthday  with  costly  gifts :  and,  after  every  reading, 
Mr.  Dickens  wrote  home,  u  We  had  above  four  hundred 
and  fifty  pounds  English  in  the  house  last  night.”  “We 
have  not  yet  had  in  it  less  than  four  hundred  and  thirty 
pounds  per  night.”  “A  charming  audience;  no  dissatis¬ 
faction  whatever  at  the  raised  prices ;  rounds  upon  rounds 
of  applause.  All  the  foremost  men  and  their  families  had 
taken  tickets.  A  small  place  to  read  in :  three  hundred 
pounds  in  it.”  At  Rochester  he  had  “  above  two  hun¬ 
dred  pounds  English ;  ”  “  at  Syracuse,  three  hundred  and 
seventy-five  pounds  odd.”  He  has  “  a  misgiving  that  the 
great  excitement  about  the  President’s  impeachment  will 
damage  his  receipts ;  ”  but  he  remits  three  thousand 
pounds,  then  ten  thousand  pounds,  and  winds  up  with  a 
total  of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars.  All  this  Mr. 
Forster  has  seen  fit  to  give  to  the  world ;  and  the  world 
will  judge  on  which  side  of  these  audience-rooms  were  the 
tokens  of  refined  culture,  and  on  which  those  of  a  merce¬ 
nary  and  material  spirit,  —  whether  with  the  hearers,  who 
thought  nothing  of  high  prices  for  an  hour  of  intellectual 
enjoyment,  who  sat  silent,  respectful,  earnest,  laughing, 
crying,  applauding,  under  the  play  of  literary  taste  and 
feeling  ;  or  with  the  reader,  who  was  coolly  counting  them 
at  so  many  pounds  in  his  pocket. 

But  to  the  credit  of  Mr.  Dickens  be  it  said,  that,  at  a 
farewell  dinner  in  New  York,  he  made  the  amende  honora¬ 
ble  :  he  used  the  occasion  to  bear  his  testimony  to  the 
changes  of  twenty-five  years,  —  the  rise  of  vast  new  cities  ; 


THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELF-DEVELOPMENT.  217 


growth  in  the  graces  and  amenities  of  life ;  much  improve¬ 
ment  in  the  press,  essential  to  every  other  advance  ;  and. 
changes  in  himself,  leading  to  opinions  more  deliberately 
formed.  He  promised  his  kindly  entertainers  that  no 
copy  of  his  “  Notes  ”  or  his  “  Chuzzlewit  ”  should  in  future 
he  issued  by  him  without  accompanying  mention  of  the 
changes  to  which  he  had  referred  that  night;  of  the 
politeness,  delicacy,  sweet  temper,  hospitality,  and  consid¬ 
eration  in  all  ways,  for  which  he  had  to  thank  them ;  and 
of  his  gratitude  for  the  respect  shown,  during  all  his  visit, 
to  the  privacy  enforced  upon  him  by  the  nature  of  his 
work  and  the  condition  of  his  health.1  So  ends  the 
affair  of  the  United  States  in  re  Dickens.  The  case  was 
dismissed  from  court,  the  parties  to  divide  the  costs. 

I  have  dwelt  thus  long  upon  Carlyle  and  Dickens, 
because,  as  impugners  of  American  society,  they  were 
entitled  to  respectful  consideration,  and  because  their 
criticisms  have  gone  over  the  world,  and  are  fixed  in 
literature ;  but  chiefly  because,  by  the  analysis  of  their 
criticisms  in  the  light  of  facts,  one  sees  in  American  soci¬ 
ety  a  kind  of  moral  greatness  of  which  Carlyle  knows 
little,  and  a  spiritual  culture  of  which  Dickens  knew  less.2 

The  source  of  these  it  is  easy  to  unfold.  I  have  alluded 
to  the  provision  for  popular  education  made  by  the  State 
governments,  in  part  by  general  funds,  in  part  by  yearly 
taxes  levied  upon  school-districts.  This  the  State  does  of 
right  and  of  necessity,  since  the  safety  of  political  society 
in  a  free  State  hinges  upon  the  intelligence  and  virtue  of 
its  citizens.  As  a  rule,  knowledge  favors  virtue  and 
order.  As  Rousseau  said,  “  To  open  the  schools  is  to  shut 
the  prisons :  ”  hence  the  State  must  require  and  provide 
that  every  citizen  shall  have  knowledge  of  his  duties  as  a 

1  Forster,  chap.  GO. 

2  The  names  of  Carlyle  and  Dickens  represent  genins ;  and  what  they 
said  of  America  had  at  least  the  merit  of  raciness  and  originality.  But  a 
generation  afterwards,  in  the  chair  of  history  in  a  university,  — where  one 
has  a  right  to  look  for  accuracy  of  knowledge,  depth  of  wisdom,  breadth, 
candor,  and  liberality  of  opinion, — to  encounter  narrowness,  ignorance, 
bigotry,  and  hear  the  stale  phrases  of  Irving  and  Carlyle,  “the  almighty 
dollar,”  and  “  America  has  produced  no  men,”  repeated  and  repeated  with¬ 
out  the  flavor  of  wit  or  the  smack  of  originality,  —  this  is  simply  pitiful. 
Such  talk  American  students  hear  from  more  than  one  professor  in  Ger¬ 
many;  but  the  dignity  of  philosophic  history  and  the  nobility  of  the  world 
of  letters  forbid  any  more  siiecitic  notice  of  a  style  of  criticism  already 
in  its  dotage. 


218  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


member  of  civil  society.  But  virtue  and  religion,  lying 
within  the  domain  of  will  and  conscience,  th£  State,  by  the 
American  theory,  leaves  to  the  training  of  the  family  and 
the  Church,  with  entire  freedom  of  choice  and  action  to 
the  individual,  except  so  far  as  his  acts  may  be  injurious 
to  society.  Now,  it  is  in  this  moral  sphere  that  the 
renovating,  purifying,  saving  energy  of  American  life  has 
shown  itself  in  results  that  are  without  parallel  in  the  his¬ 
tory  of  Christendom.  One  must  master  this  mighty, 
inner,  untiring  force,  —  the  progressiveness,  rather  the 
aggressiveness,  of  a  free  religion,  —  before  he  can  begin  to 
understand  how  American  society  has  made  the  material 
conquest  of  a  continent  without  becoming  itself  material¬ 
ized  ;  how  it  has  amassed  enormous  wealth  without  being 
mammonized. 

New  England,  for  instance,  has  among  ourselves,  and  to 
some  extent  abroad,  a  sort  of  Nazarene  reputation  for 
“  Yankeeism,” — a  shrewd,  sharp,  calculating,  close,  per¬ 
haps  overreaching,  habit  in  money-matters ;  yet  it  would 
be  hard  to  find  a  community  more  removed  from  the  spirit 
of  mammonism,  or  more  happily  combining  with  the  prac¬ 
tical  and  material  the  ideal,  the  spiritual,  the  aesthetic, 
the  philanthropic.  How  many  good  things  in  theology, 
poetry,  science,  letters,  patriotism,  beneficence,  have  come 
out  of  that  Nazareth  !  No  doubt  the  struggle  for  existence 
on  the  hard  soil  and  in  the  hard  climate  of  New  England, 
and  with  the  competitions  of  trade  and  manufactures,  gives 
to  the  average  New-Englander  a  sort  of  shrewd  and  wary 
look,  and  a  seemingly  tenacious  habit,  until,  perchance,  he 
finds  himself  enrolled  among  “  the  solid  men  of  Boston,” 
and  relaxes  with  the  consciousness  of  being  at  “  the  hub 
of  the  universe.”  No  doubt,  too,  the  driving  business- 
ways  of  New  York  and  Chicago  compel  every  one  to  be 
smart  who  would  get  on.  Indeed,  with  too  many  of  our 
countrymen,  smartness  is  the  standard  virtue,  and  lack  of 
gumption  the  one  damning  sin.  An  English  friend  told 
me,  that,  going  out  one  evening  from  his  hotel  in  an 
American  town,  he  pitched  headlong  into  a  ditch  that  had 
been  excavated  for  gas-pipes,  and  left  without  warning 
lights.  Next  morning,  at  breakfast,  he  denounced  in  true 
English  style  the  “beastly”  neglect  of  the  authorities: 


THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELF-DEVELOPMENT.  219 

whereupon  a  quaint  Yankee  at  the  table  gave  him  this 
counsel :  “  I  tell  you  what,  stranger,  if  you’re  going  to 
travel  round  in  this  country,  you  must  learn  to  use  your 
intellects.  I’ve  been  in  England,  and  know  how  you  do 
things  there.  When  you  go  to  the  railway-station,  one 
policeman  sees  that  the  cabman  doesn’t  cheat  you ; 
another  then  takes  you  on  his  arm  to  the  booking-office, 
and  sees  that  you  get  the  right  ticket  and  the  right 
change ;  then  a  porter  lifts  you  in  his  arms,  and  puts 
you  into  the  carriage ;  then  the  guard  comes,  and  hopes 
you’re  comfortable,  and  locks  the  door  so  that  you  can  t 
fall  out.  But  when  you  go  to  a  railroad-station  here,  and 
see  six  trains  ready  to  start  at  once  for  nobody  knows 
where,  then  you’ve  got  to  stir  round,  and  use  your  intel¬ 
lects  ;  and  I  tell  you,  stranger,  if  you  can’t  learn  to  use 
your  intellects,  then  you’d  better  go  home,  where  there’s 
always  somebody  to  keep  you  from  tumbling  into  ditches.” 
My  friend  told  me  he  profited  much  by  this  advice  in  his 
further  travels.  This  habit  of  self-dependence,  of  finding 
or  making  his  own  way,  obtains  in  the  American  from  the 
news-boy  and  boot-black  to  the  party  politician,  either  of 
whom  may  have  hopes  of  the  presidency,  if  only  he  can 
“  get  on.”  I  can  well  fancy  that  this  national  smartness 
is  not  relished  by  foreigners,  and  not  understood  by  them. 
But  this  activity  of  intellect  in  practical  every-day  life 
does  not  suppress  the  tastes,  the  affections,  the  humanities, 
in  the  higher,  nobler  life  of  the  soul. 

Pere  Hyacinthe,  after  a  tour  in  New  England,  said  he 
had  remarked  in  every  town  three  institutions  that  epito¬ 
mized  American  society,  —  the  bank,  the  school,  and  the 
church.  A  true  picture.  And  you  see  the  intellectual  and 
the  spiritual  are  two  to  one  against  the  material,  —  the 
bank  the  storehouse  of  gains  and  savings,  the  school  and 
the  church  the  distributing  reservoirs  of  what  is  freely 
taken  from  the  bank,  and  given  to  these  educating  and 
spiritualizing  forces  of  society. 

“  The  Americans,”  says  De  Tocqueville,  “  show  by  their 
practice  that  they  feel  the  high  necessity  of  imparting 
morality  to  democratic  communities  by  means  of  religion. 
.  .  .  In  the  United  States,  on  the  first  day  of  every  week,  the 
trading  and  working  life  of  the  nation  seems  suspended ; 


220  CENTENNIAL  OP  AMEKICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

all  noises  cease ;  a  deep  tranquillity,  say  rather  the  solemn 
calm  of  meditation,  succeeds  the  turmoil  of  the  week ;  and 
the  soul  resumes  possession  and  contemplation  of  itself. 
Upon  this  day  the  marts  of  traffic  are  deserted  :  every 
member  of  the  community,  accompanied  by  his  children, 
goes  to  church,  where  he  listens  to  strange  language, 
which  would  seem  unsuited  to  his  ear.”  This  last  ex¬ 
pression  shows  that  even  the  philosophical  acumen  of 
De  Tocqueville  had  failed  to  penetrate  to  the  secret  of 
religious  life  in  America.  That  is  no  u  strange  language  ” 
to  which  the  American  banker,  merchant,  farmer,  me¬ 
chanic,  listens  when  he  goes  to  church  on  Sunday :  it  is 
the  language  he  was  accustomed  in  childhood  to  hear 
from  his  parents ;  the  language  that  perhaps  he  himself 
has  used  in  his  own  family  every  day  of  the  week  at 
morning  prayer ;  the  lessons  that  he  inculcates  to  his 
children,  —  “  of  the  finer  pleasures  which  belong  to  virtue 
alone,  and  of  the  true  happiness  which  attends  it.”  It  is 
not  on  Sunday  alone,  as  De  Tocqueville  imagined,  “  that 
the  American  steals  an  hour  from  himself,  and  laying  aside 
for  a  while  the  petty  passions  which  agitate  his  life,  and 
the  ephemeral  interests  which  engross  it,  strays  at  once 
into  an  ideal  world,  where  all  is  great,  eternal,  and  pure.” 
Thousands  upon  thousands  of  the  busiest  men  in  America 
do  this  every  day  with  undeviating  regularity.  This  is 
their  life,  —  in  that  ideal  world  ;  and  they  bring  from  this 
springs  and  motives  to  action  in  the  world  of  affairs. 
Hence  these  same  busy  men  are  to  be  seen  on  Sundays 
teaching  the  poor  in  mission-schools,  on  week-days  attend¬ 
ing  prayer-meetings  and  committees  of  benevolent  socie¬ 
ties  :  hence  these  same  rich  men  are  found  with  their 
check-books  always  open  to  the  calls  of  Christian  work 
and  duty. 

I  have  spoken  of  the  mass  of  pauperism,  vice,  and  crime, 
that  immigration  pours  in  upon  New  York.  But  see,  now, 
how  Christian  zeal  and  beneficence  seek  to  purify  and 
renovate  this.  In  addition  to  hospitals,  infirmaries,  refor¬ 
matories,  supported  by  taxation,  and  to  special  charities 
of  every  name  endowed  by  private  munificence,  or  sus¬ 
tained  by  yearly  donations,  the  whole  city  is  divided  into 
mission-districts,  and  the  several  religious  communions 


THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELF-DEVELOPMENT.  221 


unite  in  sustaining  missions  and  free  churches  for  the 
poor.  There  are  in  the  city  a  hundred  and  forty  mission- 
stations,  many  of  which  have  connected  with  them  indus¬ 
trial  schools,  reading-rooms,  infirmaries,  and,  in  winter,  the 
systematic  distribution  of  food  and  fuel.  In  addition  to 
these  missions,  there  are,  in  New  Fork,  two  hundred  and 
forty  Protestant  churches,  with  sittings  for  two  hundred 
and  fifty  thousand  persons,  while  the  missions  will  accom¬ 
modate  fifty  thousand  more  ;  and  a  total  of  three  hundred 
thousand  church-sittings  are  a  large  provision  for  the  non- 
Catliolic  inhabitants,  which  may  be  estimated  at  six  hundred 
thousand  in  a  population  of  a  million,  dhe  valuation  of 
these  churches  is  twenty  million  dollars.  Notwithstanding 
the  rapid  increase  of  population  since  1880,  and  the  enor¬ 
mous  advance  in  the  cost  of  building-sites,  the  churches  have 
kept  pace  with  the  growth  of  the  city ;  and  to-day  there  is 
a  Protestant  church  in  New  York  for  every  1,578  of  the 
Protestant  population.  Still  more  striking  are  the  results 
of  evangelistic  zeal  in  the  country  at  large.  From  1850 
to  1870°the  population  of  the  United  States  increased 
sixty-six  per  cent,  and  in  the  same  period  the  provision 
for  the  religious  wants  of  the  people  increased  ninety  per 
cent ;  so  that  to-day  there  is  one  evangelical  minister  to 
every  seven  hundred  and  ninety-one  persons.  The  evan¬ 
gelical  church-property  is  valued  at  three  hundred  and 
fifty  million  dollars,  and  the  American  people  pay  yearly 
for  the  support  of  their  churches  about  fifty  million  dol¬ 
lars.  He  who  reflects  that  all  this  is  done  of  free  will, 
without  taxation  or  compulsion,  or  aid  in  any  form  from 
the  State,  will  see  that  a  people  who  have  given  money 
for  church-extension  to  a  degree  that  has  outstripped  the 
growth  of  the  population  are  not  given  to  the  sordid  pur¬ 
suit  of  this  world,  and  do  not  count  material  good  the 
chief  end  of  life. 

There  are  forms  of  religion  that  repress  certain  forms 
of  culture.  But  in  the  United  States  the  prevailing  tone 
of  spiritual  life  has  always  favored  the  highest  type  _  of 
mental  and  social  development.  “  The  word  of  ambition 
at  the  present  day,”  says  Emerson,  “is  culture.”1  This 
is  indeed  a  most  pretentious  word,  and  is  uttered  with  a 

i  Conduct  of  Life,  Essay  IV. 


222  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

most  pretentious  air  by  many  who  would  be  sorely  puz¬ 
zled  to  give  a  definition  of  the  term,  and  still  more  puzzled, 
on  hearing  it  defined,  to  feel  themselves  wanting  in  the 
first  rudiments  of  the  thing.  Mr.  Emerson  discourses  of 
it  as  something  that  shall  at  last  “  absorb  the  chaos  and 
gehenna,  —  convert  the  Furies  into  Muses,  and  the  hells 
into  benefit ;  ”  but  he  fails  to  tell  us  what  this  enchant¬ 
ment  is,  or  how  to  be  attained.  His  nearest  approach  to  a 
definition  is  this,  — which  is  like  many  another  riddle  from 
the  same  oracle,  —  u  Culture  is  the  suggestion  from  cer¬ 
tain  best  thoughts,  that  a  man  has  a  range  of  affinities 
through  which  he  can  modulate  the  violence  of  any  mas¬ 
ter-tones  that  have  a  droning  preponderance  in  his  scale, 
and  succor  him  against  himself.”  In  plainer  words,  this 
means  that  culture  gives  balance  to  one’s  powers,  and 
represses  his  excesses  and  conceits  through  wider  knowl¬ 
edge,  sympathy,  diversity,  experience.  But  these  are 
fruits  or  manifestations  of  culture,  and  do  not  acquaint  us 
with  the  art  or  its  methods.  Mr.  Matthew  Arnold,  who 
preaches  culture  as  the  new  gospel  for  humanity,  defines 
his  theme  with  tantalizing  vagueness :  it  is  “a  pursuit  of 
our  total  perfection  by  means  of  getting  to  know,  in  all  the 
matters  which  most  concern  us,  the  best  which  has  been 
thought  and  said  in  the  world,  and,  through  this  knowl¬ 
edge,  turning  a  stream  of  fresh  and  free  thought  upon  our 
stock  notions  and  habits.”  1  He  is  a  little  more  precise 
when  he  speaks  of  culture  as  leading  us  u  to  conceive  of 
true  human  perfection  as  an  harmonious  perfection,  develop¬ 
ing  all  sides  of  our  humanity ;  and  as  a  general  perfection, 
developing  all  parts  of  our  society :  ” 2  u  Perfection  is  an 
harmonious  expansion  of  all  the  powers  which  make  the 
beauty  and  worth  of  human  nature,  and  is  not  consistent 
with  the  over-development  of  any  one  power  at  the  ex¬ 
pense  of  the  rest.”3  Hence  “  culture  places  human  per¬ 
fection  in  an  internal  condition,  in  the  growth  and  pre¬ 
dominance  of  our  humanity  proper,  as  distinguished  from 
our  animality.”4  But  all  this  is  rhetorical  description, 
not  philosophical  definition ;  and  Mr.  Arnold  recurs  con¬ 
tinually  to  liis  favorite  figure  of  “  the  play  of  conscious- 

'  l  £ul4ure  an<l  Anarchy,  Preface,  x.  2  ibid.,  xiii. 

s  Ibid.,  p.  13.  4  ibid.,  p.  ll. 


THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELE-DEVELOPMENT.  228 

ness  upon  stock  notions  and  habits.”  The  figure  is  good 
as  far  as  it  goes.  But  planting  your  garden  with  the 
best,  and  watering  it  well,  is  not  the  whole  of  culture  :  if 
it  has  been  44 stocked”  with  worthless  roots  and  weeds, 
these  must  be  exterminated  by  something  more  effective 
than  a  fresh  stream.  Besides,  culture  does  not  begin  and 
end  in  thoughts,  notions,  habits:  there  are  principles, 
motives,  feelings,  to  be  formed  or  directed  aright. 

Wilhelm  von  Humboldt  marks  a  fine  gradation  in  the 
progress  of  society :  44  Civilization  is  the  humanizing  of 
peoples  in  their  outward  institutions  and  customs,  and  in 
the  inner  disposition  that  has  regard  to  these  :  culture 
adds  to  this  ennobling  of  the  social  condition  the  pursuit 
of  the  sciences  and  the  fine  arts ;  but  still  higher  is  Bil¬ 
dung.”  1  And  Fichte  says,  44  All  Bildung  aims  at  produ¬ 
cing  a  stable,  definitive,  and  permanent  being  (or  state 
of  being).  Did  it  not  aim  at  such  a  state,  it  would  be  not 
Bildung ,  but  an  aimless  play.”2  For  this  Bildung ,  this 
formative  process,  the  English  has  no  exact  equivalent ; 
but  the  term  44  culture  ”  covers  the  whole  ground,  if  we 
keep  in  view  its  etymology  and  the  subject-matter  to 
which  it  is  applied.  Cultus  is  labor  carefully  bestowed 
for  improvement,  for  developing  nature,  and,  if  need  be, 
refining  upon  nature,  so  as  to  produce  the  best.  Flence 
the  term  is  applicable  to  any  thing  capable  of  being  im¬ 
proved  by  care  or  training,  be  it  the  soil,  a  flower,  a  fruit, 
a  tree,  an  animal,  a  man,  a  people  ;  but,  whatever  skilled 
labor  may  accomplish  for  improvement,  the  thing  culti¬ 
vated  remains  as  to  its  essential  nature  the  same,  —  either 
land,  plant,  animal,  man,  or  society.  It  is  obvious,  then, 
that  the  grade  of  culture  is  to  be  estimated  not  only  by 
outward  results  produced  in  any  given  direction,  but  by 
the  nature  and  value  of  the  material  or  substance  wrought 
upon ;  as,  for  instance,  the  civilization  of  a  savage  people  is 
an  achievement  of  a  higher  order  than  the  domestication 
of  their  wild  animals.  The  definitions  or  descriptions  of 
culture  given  by  Emerson  and  others  are,  therefore,  too 
limited,  in  that  they  restrict  culture  to  knowledge  and 
manners ;  whereas  the  whole  man  is  properly  the  subject 
of  culture,  and  the  man  centres  in  that  spiritual  nature, 

1  Kawispr.  1,  xxxvii.  2  Eiclite,  7,  281. 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


that  positive  definitive  being,  of  which  thoughts,  tastes, 
habits,  are  but  functions,  predicates,  or  appendages. .  The 
true  culture  of  man  must  begin  with  this  inner  spiritual 
nature,  this  reasonable,  conscionable  soul,  and  proceed  from 
this  outwards,  as  the  cultured  soul,  by  its  own  higher 
capacities,  aims,  and  affinities,  shall  appropriate  to  itself  as 
a  garment  all  worthy  knowledge,  graces,  arts,  attainments. 
It  is  true  that  one  cannot  cultivate  a  science  or  an  art 
without,  in  a  sense,  cultivating  the  soul ;  but  to  spend  the 
labor  of  life  in  cultivating  the  science  or  art  as  the  sum 
and  end  of  life  is  to  furbish  and  adorn  the  case,  but  leave 
the  diamond  within  uncut,  unpolished,  unseen,  or  per¬ 
chance,  when  seen,  found  to  be  no  diamond,  but  a  mass  of 
uncrystallized  carbon.  What  we  want  of  culture  is,  that 
it  shall  bestow  its  thoughtful  and  careful  labor  upon  the 
proper  subject ;  that  the  man  shall  be  wrought  out  and 
brought  out  in  what  Mr.  Arnold  has  fitly  styled  his  u  total 
perfection,”  and  this  not  simply  by  knowing  the  best  in 
all  the  matters  which  most  concern  him,  but  by  having 
the  best,  doing  the  best,  being  the  best,  possible  for  him¬ 
self  and  others.  I  would  define  culture  as  that  condition 
of  man  and  of  society  in  which  all  capabilities  for  the 
noble,  the  beautiful,  the  true,  the  good,  are  brought  into 
supreme  exercise,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  unsightly  and  the 
evil,  and  in  harmonious  adjustment  for  the  perfection  of 
the  individual  and  the  whole  ;  and  the  process  of  culture 
is  the  training  of  man's  spiritual  nature  to  this  end. 

Looking  thus  at  man  as  the  prime  subject  of  all  culture, 
we  see  at  once  that  materialism  would  block  the  way  to 
the  truest  and  noblest  culture  by  discarding  the  spiritual 
nature,  — which  is  capable  itself  of  the  purest  refinement, 
and  also  of  refining  external  nature  from  itself,  —  and 
substituting  for  this  a  mere  atomical  organism,  of  which 
thought,  consciousness,  sentiment,  are  but  functions,  and 
which,  so  far  from  answering  to  Fichte’s  determinate  and 
imperishable  Sein,  has  but  a  frail  and  perishable  hold  upon 
existence,  amid  the  flux  and  reflux  of  atoms.  However 
far  such  culture  may  be  carried,  however  much  it  may 
refine  upon  its  material,  it  cannot  change  the  nature  of  that 
material ;  and  the  sum  total  of  materialistic  culture  is  the 
polishing  of  one  set  of  atoms  by  another,  like  grinding 


THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELF-DEVELOPMENT.  225 

clown  the  surface  of  a  diamond  by  grains  of  emery.  Such 
culture  makes  of  man  a  statue  without  a  soul,  and  of  society 
a  temple  without  a  divinity.  And,  materialism  aside,  this 
is  pretty  much  the  limit  of  all  forms  of  culture  that  rest 
in  knowledge,  in  the  restricted  and  unphilosophical  sense 
in  which  some  physicists  use  that  term,  making  intelli¬ 
gence  the  only  thing  in  man  that  is  susceptible  or  worthy 
of  culture. 

But  those  three  short,  simple  questions  of  Kant,  touching 
the  ideal  of  the  highest  good,  unveil  to  us  in  man  capacities 
for  ethical,  spiritual,  and  aesthetic  culture  far  above  the 
range  of  physical  objects  and  materials.  u  Every  interest 
of  my  reason  (the  speculative  as  well  as  the  practical)  is 
united  in  the  three  following  questions :  (1)  What  can  I 
know  ?  (2)  What  ought  I  to  do  ?  (3)  What  may  I  hope  ?  ” 
Of  the  last  he  says,  u  All  hoping  looks  toward  happiness, 
and,  in  regard  to  the  practical  and  the  law  of  morality,  is 
precisely  the  same  as  are  knowing  and  the  law  of  nature 
in  regard  to  the  theoretical  knowledge  of  things.”  And 
he  clinches  the  point  by  saying,  that  “  without  a  God, 
and  a  world  as  yet  to  us  invisible,  but  hoped  for,  the 
’glorious  ideas  of  morality  are  indeed  objects  of  approba¬ 
tion  and  admiration,  but  not  springs  of  purpose  and  of 
action,  since  they  do  not  fill  out  the  whole  end  which  is 
natural  and  necessary  to  every  rational  being,  and  is  even 
determined  a  priori  by  pure  reason  itself.”1  It  is  this 
spiritual  nature  in  its  totality  that  is  the  subject  of  cul¬ 
ture  in  man ;  and  that  culture  is  yet  rude  and  unfinished 
that  rests  in  arts  and  sciences  which  cultivate  the  eye,  the 
hand,  the  ear,  —  a  culture  that  furnishes  the  chambers  of 
the  cerebrum,  but  does  not  penetrate  to  the  shrine  of  the 
soul,  or  rather  come  forth  from  that  clothed  with  a  divine 
beauty  and  majesty. 

Were  I  called  upon  to  select  from  the  whole  range  of 
literature  the  man  whose  writings  evince  the  highest  soul- 
culture,  I  should  name  the  apostle  John  as  seen  in  his 
Gospel,  his  Epistles,  and  his  Apocalypse.  John  wrote  no 
system  of  philosophy ;  but  in  his  Gospel  there  is  a  philoso¬ 
phy  so  transcendently  high,  that  criticism  has  sought  to 
deprive  him  of  its  authorship,  and  transfer  this  to  a  trained 

i  Kant,  Des  Kanons  tier  relnen  Vernunft,  zweiter  Abschnitt. 


226  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

school  of  Platonists.  John  wrote  no  poetry;  bnt  where 
in  Dante  or  Milton  have  we  such  grandeur  of  imagination 
as  in  the  Apocalypse?1  John  seems  not  to  have  been  con¬ 
versant,  as  was  Paul,  with  belles-lettres  ;  but  where  in  liter¬ 
ature  have  we  finer  examples  of  the  delicate  in  style,  the 
pure  and  refined  in  feeling,  than  in  his  second  and  third 
Epistles?  John  held  no  painter’s  pencil ;  but  what  artist 
has  yet  rivalled  his  New  Jerusalem,  swinging  there  in  mid¬ 
heaven,  with  its  walls  of  crystal,  and  gates  of  pearl  ? 
J ohn  composed  no  symphony ;  but  what  music  charms  us 
from  his  celestial  choirs!  John  gathered  no  museums  of 
science ;  but  where  do  the  precious  stones  of  earth  appear 
so  glorious  as  where  jasper  and  amethyst,  sapphire  and 
sardonyx,  emerald  and  topaz,  are  set  as  foundations  in  the 
city  of  God  ?  What  form  of  culture  was  not  possible  to 
this  cultured  soul,  —  and  this  the  soul  of  a  fisherman ! 
No  mind  has  yet  ou treadled  the  thought  of  John,  no 
heart  yet  fathomed  his  love.  Art  pictures  him  as  the  type 
of  manly  beauty  graced  with  woman’s  tenderness ;  and 
history  tells  us  he  was  “  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,” 
and  to  whom  he  intrusted  his  mother. 

Purity  reflecting  the  image  of  the  Divine,  perfection 
reproducing  the  love  of  the  Divine,  —  is  there  any  thing 
nobler  or  richer  than  these  ?  How  meagre  the  culture 
that  begins  and  ends  in  ignoring  these  !  Now,  it  was  a 
peculiarity  of  American  society,  and  especially  of  New- 
England  society,  which  did  so  much  to  stamp  and  shape 
the  nation,  that  it  began  in  this  royal  valuation  of  the 
soul,  and  set  its  multure  above  all  price.  Because  of  its 
intrinsic  worth,  and  because  of  the  freedom  it  should  have 
in  religion  and  in  political  action,  the  soul  should  be 
trained  in  knowledge  and  virtue,  and,  through  its  affini¬ 
ties  with  the  spiritual  and  immortal,  be  cultivated  to  the 
highest  nobleness  of  being.  As  I  have  before  shown  of 
liberty,  that  in  America  religion  was  its  spring  and  sup- 

1  The  genuineness  of  the  fourth  Gospel  I  have  discussed  in  my  The¬ 
ology  Christ.  Now  that  the  Tubingen  School  has  died  out  in  Germany, 
it  is  not  worth  while  to  revive  the  question  here.  An  amusing  episode  of 
that  controversy  is,  however,  worth  recording.  An  English  critic,  who 
had  demonstrated  to  his  own  satisfaction  that  the  same  pen  could  not  have 
produced  two  compositions  so  different  as  John’s  Gospel  and  the  Apoca¬ 
lypse,  actually  attempted  to  prove  that  the  author  of  the  Novum  Organon 
wrote  also  the  plays  of  Shakspeare ! 


THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELF-DEVELOPMENT.  227 

port,  so  was  it  of  learning  also.  Two  of  the  oldest  col¬ 
leges  in  the  United  States,  Harvard  and  Yale,  now  grown 
to  be  universities,  were  founded  with  the  prime  object 
of  saving  the  churches  from  the  evil  of  an  uneducated 
clergy.  Can  history  show  a  more  beautiful  example  of 
religion  in  support  of  culture  than  was  seen  in  the  Colony 
of  Massachusetts  Bay  on  the  twenty-eighth  day  of  Octo¬ 
ber,  1636  ?  It  was  a  troublous  time.  The  Colony  was  but 
seven  years  old.  Its  spirit  of  freedom  had  roused  the  jeal¬ 
ousy  of  England,  and  occasion  had  been  sought  to  revoke 
its  charter.  “  Provision  had  hardly  been  made  for  the 
first  wants  of  life,  —  habitations,  food,  clothing,  and 
churches.  Walls,  roads,  and  bridges  were  yet  to  be 
built.  The  power  of  England  stood  in  attitude  to  strike. 
A  desperate  war  with  the  natives  had  already  begun.”  1 
Yet  in  these  critical  circumstances  the  legislature  voted 
to  found  a  college,  and  to  this  end  appropriated  a  sum 
“  equivalent  to  the  Colony  tax  for  a  year.”  Among  the 
leading  men  in  that  infant  Colony  were  John  Winthrop 
of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge  ;  Hugh  Peter,  also  of 
Trinity,  Cambridge,  afterwards  one  of  Cromwell’s  chap¬ 
lains  ;  Harry  Vane  of  Oxford,  son  of  the  privy  council¬ 
lor,  who  also  returned  to  England,  became  a  leader  in  the 
Long  Parliament,  and,  like  Peter,  was  beheaded  by 
Charles  II.,  because,  said  the  king,  “  he  is  too  dangerous 
a  man  to  let  live  if  we  can  honestly  put  him  out  of  the 
way;  ”  John  Humphrey,  eminent  for  his  gifts  and  learn¬ 
ing,  son-in-law  of  the  Earl  of  Lincoln ;  Simon  Bradstreet 
of  Emanuel  College,  Cambridge  ;  John  Cotton,  fellow  of 
Emanuel  College,  Cambridge,  and  for  twenty  years  rector 
of  the  splendid  Church  of  St.  Botolph’s,  Boston,  England ; 
Samuel  Stone,  also  of  Emmanuel  College,  Cambridge  ;  and 
Thomas  Hooker,  a  fellow  of  the  same  college.  These  are 
specimens  of  the  men  who  at  the  first  presided  in  the 
councils  of  the  Massachusetts  Colony,  and  ministered  to 
its  churches.  They  had  brought  with  them  all  of  learn¬ 
ing  and  culture  that  England  possessed  in  the  age  that 
followed  the  lustrous  reign  of  Elizabeth ;  and  they  took 
the  noble  resolve  to  reproduce  in  the  virgin  forest,  and 
beside  the  Indian  wigwam,  the  dear  Cambridge  of  their 

1  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  i.  548. 


228  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

native  land.  The  Assembly,  ■which  in  1686  voted  to  tax 
the  Colony  for  a  college,  is  said  to  be  “  the  first  body  in 
which  the  people,  by  their  representatives,  ever  gave  their 
own  money  to  found  a  place  of  education.”  1  Now,  that 
which  moved  them  to  care  for  literary  culture  was  their 
concern  for  spiritual  culture.  Here  is  their  own  testimony : 
u  After  God  had  carried  us  safe  to  New  England,  and  we 
had  builded  our  houses,  provided  necessaries  for  our  liveli¬ 
hood,  reared  convenient  places  for  God’s  worship,  and  set¬ 
tled  the  civil  government,  one  of  the  first  things  we  longed 
for  and  looked  after  was  to  advance  learning,  and  perpet¬ 
uate  it  to  posterity,  dreading  to  leave  an  illiterate  minis¬ 
try  to  the  churches  when  our  present  ministers  should  lie 
in  the  dust.”  2  In  a  word,  what  Prussia  has  just  now  pro¬ 
vided  for  upon  political  grounds,  —  that  all  her  clergy 
shall  have  a  broad  university  training,  —  those  settlers  in 
the  wilderness  provided  for  upon  spiritual  grounds  two 
hundred  and  forty  years  ago. 

The  spirit  of  Massachusetts  for  liberal  education  ani¬ 
mated  the  other  New-England  Colonies.  In  1648  a  con¬ 
federation  of  these  Colonies  was  formed  for  their  mutual 
welfare  and  defence ;  and  among  the  first  acts  of  this 
confederation  was  a  recommendation  that  every  family 
throughout  the  plantations  should  give  yearly  “  the  fourth 
part  of  a  bushel  of  corn,  or  something  equivalent  thereto, 
to  the  maintenance  of  poor  students  at  the  college  at 
Cambridge.  How  rich  the  harvest  from  those  grains  of 
corn !  The  wisdom  and  wit  of  Emerson,  blending  the 
Pundit  with  the  Puritan,  and  Socrates  with  Swift;  the 
mellifluous  verse  of  Longfellow,  touching  the  heart  of 
humanity  in  every  tongue ;  the  fine  sense  and  feeling  of 
Lowell  in  prose  and  poetry ;  the  humor  of  Holmes  ;  the 
dignity  of  Dana,  Nestor  of  American  poets;  the  schol¬ 
arly  eloquence  of  Buckingham,  Everett,  Winthrop  ;  the 
legal  lore  of  Story  the  father,  and  the  chaste  art  of  the 
son,  alike  with  the  chisel  and  the  pen;  the  scientific 
breadth  and  accuracy  of  Peirce,  whether  exploring  the 
skies  or  the  seas  ;  the  humane  ethics  of  Channing  and  the 
4\  ares ;  the  philanthropic  statesmanship  of  Sumner  ;  and 

1  Edward  Everett,  in  Palfrey,  i.  548. 

2  New  England’s  First-Fruits,  12. 


THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELF-DEVELOPMENT.  229 

that  wealth  of  historic  research  in  Sparks,  Eliot,  Palfrey, 
Prescott,  Hildreth,  Ticknor,  —  whose  portrait  adorned  the 
library  of  the  late  King  of  Saxony,  —  Motley,  —  whose 
portrait  is  the  one  favored  picture  in  the  private  salon  of 
the  Queen  of  the  Netherlands  in  her  summer  palace  at  the 
Hague,  —  Bancroft,  who,  having  so  enriched  his  country 
with  the  materials  of  her  history,  has  imitated  her  early 
settlers  in  giving  the  material  proceeds  of  his  work  to  aid 
poor  scholars  at  Cambridge,  —  these,  and  scores  like 
these,  are  fruits  of  that  pious  provision  for  learning,  in 
arts,  sciences,  and  letters,  two  centuries  and  a  half  ago. 
What  land  of  Europe  has  not  been  enriched  by  this  New- 
England  culture  of  the  spiritual  nature  of  man  ? 

No  less  significant  of  the  affinity  of  religion  for  culture 
was  the  act  of  a  few  ministers  who  came  together  in 
1700,  each  with  an  armful  of  books  culled  from  his  own 
library,  and  —  with  the  simple  formula, 44  I  give  these  books 
for  the  founding  of  a  college  ”  —  began  what  has  grown  to 
be  the  University  at  New  Haven.  And  from  Yale  Col¬ 
lege  what  treasures  of  culture  in  learning  and  science 
have  enriched  mankind  !  —  Percival  and  Hillhouse  among 
the  poets;  Webster,  Gibbs,  Hadley,  Salisbury,  Whitney, 
among  philologists,  and  especially  Eli  Smith,  whose  work 
in  translating  the  Bible  into  Arabic  placed  him  among 
the  foremost  Semitic  scholars ;  Dana  the  naturalist,  hon¬ 
ored  by  scientific  academies  throughout  the  world ;  Ed¬ 
wards,  Taylor,  and  Porter,  among  philosophers  ;  Cal¬ 
houn,  Woolsey,  Evarts,  among  statesmen  and  legists; 
Lyman  Beecher,  Dwight,  Bacon,  Bushnell  (the  last  more 
widely  read  by  men  of  thought  than  any  recent  theolo¬ 
gian).  The  mention  of  this  name  leads  me  to  speak  of 
one  product  of  mind  in  New  England  that  holds  no  mean 
place  among  the  philosophic  systems  of  the  world :  I 
mean  the  distinctive  New- England  theology  that  is  repre¬ 
sented  by  such  names  as  Edwards,  Hopkins,  West,  Bel- 
lam v,  Emmons,  Taylor,  Park.  This  theology  has  dealt 
mainly  with  the  questions  of  the  human  will,  the  origin 
of  evil,  the  atonement,  and  the  moral  government  of  God ; 
and  the  whole  literature  of  theology  nowhere  presents  a 
theodicy  more  strongly  marked  with  deep  and  keen  meta¬ 
physical  speculation,  thorough  exegesis,  and  cogent  logic. 


280  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

The  power  of  this  theology  in  training  the  minds  of  men, 
when  books  were  few,  was  sometimes  wonderful.  After 
the  death  of  Dr.  Bellamy,  an  old  negro  who  had  always 
attended  on  his  preaching  was  asked  how  he  liked  the 
new  minister.  “  H’m :  he  preach  smart ;  he  make  God 
big,  but  no  so  big  as  Massa  Bellamy.  Massa  Bellamy  — 
he  make  God  Almighty  awful  big  !  ”  There  was  an  instru¬ 
ment  of  soul-culture — the  power  of  making  spiritual 
things  real,  great,  majestic  —  that  took  hold  upon  the 
rudest  minds,  and  lifted  these  into  the  unseen  and  eter¬ 
nal  ;  and  a  mind  that  is  not  capable  of  realizing  such 
things  can  no  more  judge  of  American  culture  than  a 
blind  man  can  judge  of  color. 

I  come  back  to  the  proposition,  that  all  true  culture 
must  have  for  its  basis  the  spiritual  nature  in  man.  Why 
is  it  that  Germany  has  enlisted  the  sympathies  of  enlight¬ 
ened  and  cultivated  men  throughout  the  world  in  her 
conflict  with  Ultramontanism  ?  It  is  because  she  would 
maintain  for  the  human  mind  that  freedom  of  thought  and 
development  that  Luther  won  at  the  Reformation.  But 
if  there  be  no  mind  to  be  cultivated,  —  nothing  but 
sciences,  arts,  and  manners,  —  the  strife  is  not  worth  our 
concern.  Why  is  ecclesiastical  tyranny  the  most  hateful 
and  hated  of  all  ?  Because  it  binds  its  chains  upon  the 
mind.  Other  tyrannies  can  be  broken  by  force  of  will, 
by  the  uprising  of  mind ;  but  clerical  tyranny  palsies  the 
will,  and  holds  the  soul  in  vassalage.  The  struggle  with 
Vaticanism  enlists  my  whole  being,  only  because  I  look 
upon  this  as  the  emancipation  of  man’s  spiritual  nature 
from  worse  than  material  bonds.  Surely  the  Latin 
Church  has  not  been  wanting  in  that  aesthetic  and  mate¬ 
rialistic  culture  that  some  account  the  perfection  of  civili¬ 
zation.  Who  conserved  the  Latin  tongue  ?  Who  built 
the  cathedrals,  illuminated  windows  and  missals,  gathered 
great  libraries,  founded  universities,  gave  to  Titian,  Giotto, 
Michael  Angelo,  Leonardo  da  Vinci,  Raphael,  the  themes 
and  motives  of  their  greatest  works  ?  Is  it  against  such  a 
Rome  as  this,  such  a  culture '  as  this,  that  modern  society 
is  up  in  arms  ?  Nay  :  but  Luther  said,  u  You  sha’n’t  build 
St.  Peter’s  in  Rome  at  the  price  of  souls  here  in  Ger¬ 
many;'’  and  so  he,  in  his  rough  way,  struck  for  that  cul- 


THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELF-DEVELOPMENT.  231 

ture  of  the  spiritual  in  man  which  has  made  Germany 
what  she  is  to-day.  The  planters  of  America  made  that 
spiritual  nature  their  first  care.  It  was  because  of  this, 
that  their  descendants,  in  the  huge  struggle  with  nature 
that  was  laid  upon  them,  did  not  sink  toward  barbarism. 
It  was  because  this  heavenward  side  of  their  nature  was 
kept  always  open,  and  full  of  light,  that,  when  the  pressure 
of  their  material  work  was  over,  they  had  an  aptitude  for 
the  intellectual  and  the  sesthetic,  and  began  to  create  a 
literature,  and  are  now  giving  themselves  to  art,  with  the 
intensity  of  a  nature  that  has  mastered  the  material  and 
the  political,  and  now  goes  on  to  crave  and  claim  all  that 
is  noble,  good,  beautiful,  in  earth  or  man,  as  the  heritage, 
the  appanage,  of  a  cultivated  soul. 

This  accounts  for  the  rapid  growth  of  American  litera¬ 
ture.  Many  of  us  can  remember  the  sneer  of  44  The  Edin¬ 
burgh  Review,”  “Who  reads  an  American  book?”  The 
laugh  is  turned,  now  that  everywhere  in  England  one  sees 
the  railway  book-stalls,  and  the  shelves  of  circulating 
libraries,  crowded  with  American  books  in  ready  demand  ; 
that  one  can  count  up  scores  of  American  authors  reprinted 
in  England  (in  the  catalogue  of  a  single  London  publisher 
I  lately  saw  twelve  American  names)  ;  that  in  44  The  Inter¬ 
national  Scientific  Series,”  published  at  London  and  Leip¬ 
zig,  the  names  of  Cooke,  Dana,  Draper,  Flint,  Whitney, 
appear  side  by  side  with  Bain,  Carpenter,  Huxley,  Lubbock, 
Spencer,  Tyndall,  Bernstein,  Liebreicli,  Leuckart,  Stein- 
thal,  Virchow ;  that  every  leading  English  review  now  lias 
its  department  of  American  literature.  44  The  Athenaeum  ” 
finds  much  to  praise,  and  even  the  hypercritical  44  Saturday 
Review  ”  now  and  then  throws  us  such  tid-bits  as  these : 
“  Hawthorne  is  one  of  the  most  fascinating  of  novelists. 
Whittier’s  4  Mabel  Martin  ’  is  enough  to  make  the  reputa¬ 
tion  of  any  poet.”  True,  we  have  given  birth  to  no  Shak- 
speare  nor  Byron ;  but  with  the  list  of  contemporary  Eng¬ 
lish  poets,  from  Tennyson  down  to  Swinburne,  we  need 
not  hesitate  to  compare  our  list  from  Bryant  down  to 
Whitman,  each  after  his  kind. 

Of  humorists  America  has  spawned  more  than  enough, 
and  cannot  but  marvel  that  her  English  cousins  are  so 
taken  with  the  44  Artemus  Ward  ”  and 44  Mark  Twain  ”  style, 


232  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

in  wliicli  the  higher  culture  of  America  finds  so  little  trace 
of  genius.  As  yet,  we  have  produced  no  Beethoven,  Mo¬ 
zart,  nor  even  a  Wagner;  but  what  may  not  be  possible 
in  this  direction,  when  all  the  sound  of  which  America  is 
capable  shall  be  wrought  into  “  the  music  of  the  future  ” 
by  some  new  master  of  the  sensations  of  tone  ?  Lowell 
has  wittily  said,  “  The  German  who  plays  the  bass-viol  has 
a  well-founded  contempt,  which  he  is  not  always  nice  in 
concealing,  for  a  country  so  few  of  whose  children  ever 
take  that  noble  instrument  between  their  knees.”  1  Yet 
nowhere  do  the  best  musicians  now  find  more  appreciative 
and  critical  audiences  than  in  the  United  States  ;  and  the 
wide  sale  of  classical  music  and  of  the  best  pianos  argues 
a  musical  taste  among  the  people  at  large,  which,  even  in 
the  absence  of  great  native  composers,  may  be  taken  as 
evidence  of  culture.2  Must  one  be  a  poet  to  appreciate 
poetry,  or  a  musician  to  appreciate  music  ?  The  man  to 
whom  I  owe  more  than  to  any  other,  if  not  all  others,  is 
Beethoven.  He  it  was  who  first  opened  to  my  inner  con¬ 
sciousness  the  majesty  of  the  soul,  the  height,  depth,  length, 
breadth,  of  the  Unutterable.  Plato  had  foreshadowed  this 
dreamily ;  Paul  had  asserted  it  dogmatically :  Beethoven 
seized  upon  its  inner  source,  and  made  it  felt  and  realized 
as  consciousness  itself.  When  I  approach  the  master  with 
such  homage,  will  he  demand  that  I  shall  conduct  a  sym¬ 
phony,  play  a  sonata,  or  even  take  the  bass-viol  between 
my  knees?  There  is  a  Free-Masonry  in  music,  and  even 
the  republican  can  give  the  secret  sign. 

No  one  would  suspect  De  Tocqueville  of  wit ;  and  there¬ 
fore  the  caption  of  one  of  his  chapters  is  the  more  exqui¬ 
sitely  droll,  —  u  Why  the  Americans  raise  some  insignifi¬ 
cant  monuments,  and  others  that  are  very  grand.”  This 
came  to  me  as  a  conundrum ;  and,  having  pored  over  it 
in  my  study,  I  walked  over  to  the  Tliier-garten,  and  took 
a  look  at  Victory  flying  her  brazen  skirts  on  top  of  the 
“  asparagus  ”  pillar ;  walked  through  the  Brandenburg 
Thor,  which  might  be  “  grand,”  if  stucco  were  not  always 
“  insignificant ;  ”  went  up  the  Linden ;  paused  before  the 

1  My  Study  Windows,  p.  70. 

2  A  college  of  music  lias  been  founded  in  New  York,  which  will  furnish 
an  incentive  to  com^iosition  as  well  as  to  execution. 


THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELF-DEVELOPMENT.  233 

really  grand  monument  of  Frederic  the  Great;  admired 
the  statues  on  the  bridge,  and  that  marvellous  juxtaposi¬ 
tion  of  palace,  cathedral,  museum,  arsenal,  opera-house, 
university,  library,  academy,  —  that  groups  all  the  sym¬ 
bols  of  civilization  as  nowhere  else  in  the  world,  —  when 
I  found  myself  staring  at  that  prodigy  of  ecclesiastical 
architecture,  the  Dom;  and  I  asked  myself  again,  “  Why 
do  the  Americans  raise  some  insignificant  monuments,  and 
others  that  are  very  grand?”  Thus  musing,  I  bethought 
myself  of  London  as  I  saw  it  on  a  bright  October  day, 
—  the  majestic  dome  of  St.  Paul’s,  the  stately  Victoria 
Tower,  the  Abbey,  the  embankment  and  bridges,  and 
then  Nelson’s  monument  with  the  four  lions,  the  eques¬ 
trian  statues,  and  especially  the  “  Iron  Duke  ”  astride  his 
iron  horse,  —  and  again  I  asked  myself,  “  Why  do  the 
Americans  raise  some  insignificant  monuments,  and  others 
that  are  very  grand?  ”  And  I  gave  it  up,  seeing  only  it 
could  not  be  because  they  are  Americans  or  republicans, 
and  having  a  vague  notion,  that,  of  all  humbugs  in  this 
much  humbugged  age,  on  nothing  has  so  much  humbug 
been  spoken  and  written  as  upon  art  as  the  measure  of 
the  culture  of  a  people. 

That  museums,  galleries,  buildings,  monuments,  statues, 
are  no  sure  criterion  of  the  present  stage  of  national  cul¬ 
ture, —  no,  not  in  art  itself,  —  Greece,  Spain,  and  even 
Italy,  are  melancholy  witnesses.  When  I  first  saw  Paris, 
many  years  ago,  I  fancied  that  the  omnipresence  of  art  in 
that  brilliant  and  tasteful  capital  must  have  a  refining 
influence  upon  even  the  meanest  of  its  inhabitants,  and 
that  one  could  trace  this  influence  in  the  very  air  of  busi¬ 
ness  and  the  manners  of  the  common  people.  The  Com¬ 
mune  dispelled  that  illusion.  The  prostrate  Vendome 
column,  the  'blackened  ruins  of  the  Tuileries  and  the 
Hotel  de  Ville,  the  Louvre  scarce  saved  from  the  torch 
and  petroleum,  are  a  warning  to  the  panegyrists  of  testlret- 
ics,  that,  through  all  forms  of  culture  and  of  society, 
human  nature  remains  the  one  unchanged  factor  of  evil. 
Plato  had  already  admonished  us  of  “  the  lovers  of  sounds 
and  sights,  fond  of  fine  tones  and  colors  and  forms,  and 
all  the  artificial  products  that  are  made  out  of  them,  hav¬ 
ing  a  sense  of  beautiful  things,  but  wdiose  mind  is  incapa- 


234  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMEEICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


ble  of  seeing  or  loving  absolute  beauty.”  1  Augustine,  too, 
bad  said  of  his  own  devotion  to  the  liberal  arts,  u  I  had 
my  back  to  the  light,  and  my  face  to  the  things  enlight¬ 
ened  ;  whence  my  face,  with  which  I  discerned  the  things 
enlightened,  itself  was  not  enlightened.”  Art-culture  is 
not  always  the  key  to  soul-culture,  nor  are  art  collections 
always  a  true  index  of  the  culture  of  the  beautiful.  The 
Germany  of  to-day  may  be  in  advance  of  the  Italy  of 
to-day  in  the  aesthetic  spirit,  though  the  chief  treasures 
of  her  museums  are  of  Italian  origin,  and  her  best  models, 
casts,  or  copies,  of  Italian  masters,  and  though  Italy  is 
tenfold  richer  in  the  great  originals.  Again  :  the  posses¬ 
sion  of  a  museum  or  a  gallery  of  exceptional  richness  in 
this  or  that  locality  may  be  due  to  the  taste  and  liberality 
of  an  individual  prince,  or  line  of  princes,  rather  than  to 
an  elevated  taste  in  the  people  or  the  race ;  just  as  the 
possession  of  a  grand  cathedral  may  be  owing  to  the  acci¬ 
dent  of  an  architect  being  born  in  the  place,  or  to  the 
wealth  or  vanity  of  the  cathedral  chapter.  Would  Dres¬ 
den  acknowledge  itself  inferior  in  culture  to  Cologne  or 
Strasburg  because  it  can  boast  no  cathedral  like  theirs? 
Would  Berlin  confess  itself  behind  Dresden  in  art-culture 
because  the  gallery  at  Dresden  is  incomparably  richer  in 
the  best  works  of  the  best  masters?  Or  would  either 
capital  rate  itself  below  Florence  or  Madrid,  though  the 
galleries  of  these  are  still  richer?  Taste  and  wealth, 
judiciously  applied,  have  enabled  St.  Petersburg  to  profit 
by  the  impoverishment  of  Italy,  and  to  enrich  her  impe¬ 
rial  gallery  with  the  spoils  of  Southern  art.  But  does 
this  indicate  that  the  Russians,  as  a  people,  are  surpassing 
the  Italians  in  art-culture  ?  When,  however,  the  simple 
American  citizen  buys  the  gallery  of  some  bankrupt  Euro¬ 
pean  noble,  either  for  his  private  enjoyment,  or  to  found 
by  his  munificence  a  museum  for  the  public,  this  is  a  true 
indication  of  the  growth  of  art  in  America,  and  points  to 
a  surer  test  of  culture  than  the  size  and  value  of  collec¬ 
tions,  —  the  diffusion  of  taste  among  the  people.2  It  is  the 

1  Republic,  book  v. 

2  In  the  private  galleries  of  New  York,  in  addition  to  the  best  produc¬ 
tions  of  American  artists,  —  Bierstadt,  Boughton,  Church,  Cole,  Cropsey, 
Gilford,  Gray,  Hicks,  Huntington,  Ingham,  Eastman  Johnson,  Leutze, 
Page,  and  others,  —  may  be  found  many  choice  specimens  of  famous 


THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELF-DEVELOPMENT.  235 

glory  of  Italy,  as  it  was  once  the  glory  of  Greece,  that 
she  has  achieved  great  things  in  art ;  and  this  attests 
a  special  art-capacity  in  the  race.  We  must  honestly 
confess  that  our  national  taste  in  art  has  not  much  to 
boast  of,  either  in  originals  or  in  selections ;  though  we 
are  beginning  to  have  a  school  in  landscape-painting. 
The  proverb,  “A  fool  and  his  money  are  soon  parted,”  has 
been  often  illustrated  in  the  art-purchasers  of  our  par¬ 
venus  abroad.  But,  though  the  taste  needs  to  be  edu¬ 
cated,  the  capacity  is  there.  We  are  learning  to  laugh 
at  our  follies  and  our  fools.  Looking  beyond  the  facti¬ 
tious  culture  of  modern  Europe  to  the  glory  of  Praxiteles 
and  Phidias,  of  Zeuxis  and  Apelles,  we  are  beginning  to 
ask  ourselves,  Why  should  not  democracy,  as  the  nursery 
of  man,  be  again  true  to  its  mission  as  the  nursery  of 
art  ?  Why  should  the  American  people  erect  “  insig¬ 
nificant  monuments,”  though  European  powers  have  done 
the  same  ?  The  growth  among  us  of  a  guild  of  the  culti¬ 
vated,  men  of  wealth  and  their  sons,  who  use  wealth  for 
the  adornment  of  life;  the  growth  of  art-criticism;  the 
founding  of  schools  and  museums  of  art  in  New  York, 
Philadelphia,  Boston,  and  other  cities,  and  at  Yale  and 
other  colleges ;  the  improvement  in  church  architecture, 
and  in  the  taste  of  public  buildings  and  of  suburban  villas ; 
the  increase  of  art-students,  and  of  journals  devoted  to 
art,  —  these  all  are  healthy  signs,  that,  our  rougher  work 
and  sterner  duties  being  so  far  accomplished,  we  shall 
turn  the  training  of  the  inner  nature  to  the  culture  of 
the  outer. 

The  fashion  of  rich  men  to  found  libraries,  lyceums, 
colleges  ;  the  wide  demand  for  books  of  science  ;  the  popu¬ 
larity  of  scientific  lectures,  and  of  journals  that  reproduce 
these  cheaply  for  the  million ;  the  effort  of  indigent  stu¬ 
dents  and  teachers  to  see  and  learn  all  that  the  Old  W orld 
has  to  show  or  teach ;  the  creation  of  an  International 
Exposition  with  appropriate  architecture,  art,  and  adorn¬ 
ment,  —  are  cheering  tokens  of  the  diffusion,  among  the 
masses,  of  that  degree  of  knowledge  which  creates  the 

European  painters,  —  Achenbach,  Bosa  Bonlieur,  Campliausen,  Cooper, 
Gerdme,  Girard  de  Haas,  Jordan,  Kaulbach,  Knaus,  Merle,  Meissonier, 
Meyer  von  Bremen,  Ary  Selieft'er,  Troyon,  Verboeckhoven,  Horace  Vernet. 


236  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

desire  for  more,  and  conducts  to  the  higher  culture.  The 
intellectual  activity  of  the  American  people  has  shown 
itself  largely  in  discoveries  and  inventions  serviceable  to 
mankind.  Franklin  had  already  a  European  reputation  as 
a  philosopher  before  he  appeared  on  the  stage  as  a  states¬ 
man  ;  and  where  he  led,  in  drawing  the  electricity  of  the 
clouds  harmless  to  the  earth,  there  Morse  followed,  in 
appropriating  electricity  to  the  transmission  of  thought, 
and  making  this  intelligible  through  an  alphabet ;  and 
Henry,  with  his  application  of  the  helix,  and  the  combina¬ 
tion  of  circuits  through  the  receiving-magnet  and  the 
relay ;  and  field,  with  his  personal  magnetism  organizing" 
.the  company  for  the  Atlantic  telegraph,  and  with  his 
indomitable  pluck  laying  the  cable  when  everybody  said 
he  had  failed.  And  now  comes  Gray,  with  his  studies  upon 
the  electric  current,  and  his  arrangement  of  batteries,  by 
which  the  same  wire  can  be  made  to  transmit  two,  four, 
and  even  eight  messages  at  the  same  instant  of  time.  Eli 
Whitney  invented  the  cotton-gin,  and  the  heir  of  his  name 
and  genius  contrived  machinery  for  making  guns  in  con¬ 
vertible  parts.  Colt,  Remington,  Sharps,  Maynard,  Win¬ 
chester,  and  other  American  names,  are  known  throughout 
the  world  for  inventions  in  fire-arms.  Hare,  the  earliest 
American  chemist,  invented  the  oxyhydrogen  blow-pipe ; 
and  the  laboratories  of  the  United  States,  though  but  ineffi¬ 
ciently  equipped,  have  been  tireless  in  their  researches, 
and  productive  in  results  for  the  service  of  humanity. 
Prominent  among  these  is  the  twin-discovery  of  Jackson 
and  W ells  in  anaesthetics,  by  which  the  pains  of  surgery 
are  turned  to  pleasurable  dreams.  The  war  of  the  Rebel¬ 
lion  brought  prominently  before  Europe  the  skill  and  tact 
of  American  surgeons.  The  American  ambulance  and  the 
Ameiican  field-hospital  are  extensively  copied  by  foreign 
armies.  The  Empress  of  Germany,  who  takes  a  lively 
interest  in  the  medical  service  of  the  army,  was  desirous 
of  sending  to  the  Philadelphia  Exposition  a  complete 
assortment  of  the  German  field  and  hospital  apparatus. 

“  .It  would  hardly  be  worth  while,  your  Majesty,”  said  a 
high  officer,  “  since  so  many  of  the  best  devices  are  bor¬ 
rowed  from  the  United  States.”  The  organ  of  the  Thurin- 
gian  Medical  Society  lately  published  (from  the  pen  of 


THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELF-DEVELOPMENT.  237 

Medicinalrath  Dr.  Meusel  of  Gotlia)  a  highly  favorable 
notice  of  the  Catalogue  of  the  United  States  Medical 
Museum  at  Washington.  Commending  this  review  and 
the  catalogue,  a  prominent  physician  of  Germany  wrote 
as  follows  to  the  editor  of  “  The  Chronicle  of  the  Conti¬ 
nent  :  ”  — 

“  The  various  reports  of  celebrated  American  surgeons  "which 
appear  from  time  to  time  concerning  important  operations  .sufficiently 
indicate  the  extent  to  which  surgical  science  and  skill  in  America 
have  been  developed,  and  show  also  the  number  of  masters  in  this 
branch  of  the  profession  which  your  country  has  produced.  The 
recent  consultations  and  operations  in  Germany  of  your  esteemed 

countryman,  Dr.  B - ,  have  also  contributed  in  no  small  degree  to 

the  high  value  which  is  placed  upon  American  surgical  practice. 
Naturally,  a  surgeon  so  celebrated  as  he  is  an  isolated  instance.  But 
from  this  catalogue,  which  Dr.  Meusel  has  reviewed,  we  can  clearly  see 
what  a  large  number  of  skilful  investigating  surgeons  America  pos¬ 
sesses,  and  what  a  splendid  example  was  shown  by  them  in  the  treat¬ 
ment  and  care  of  the  American  armies  during  the  late  civil  war,  - 
something  which  has  never  been  properly  acknowledged  in  Europe.” 

The  pre-eminence  of  Americans  in  dental  surgery  is 
everywhere  recognized.  Indeed,  it  was  in  the  United 
States  that  this  department  was  first  raised  to  the  dignity 
of  a  science. 

It  was  an  American  who  discovered  the  process  of 
vulcanizing  caoutchouc  ;  and  the  pains  and  privations  that 
Goodyear  underwent  in  making  a  familiar  vegetable  sub¬ 
stance  so  widely  serviceable  to  mankind  entitle  him  to  a 
name  among  the  heroic  benefactors  of  the  race. 

The  invention  of  the  cotton-gin  was  followed  by  a  num¬ 
ber  of  valuable  American  improvements  upon  the  various 
English  inventions  for  carding  and  spinning. 

In  printing,  Adams,  Bullock,  Hoe,  and  other  American 
inventors,  have  carried  the  press  and  its  accessories  to  a 
degree  of  perfection  widely  recognized  in  Europe,  and  not 
yet  surpassed.  American  industry  and  invention  have 
been  remarkably  developed  in  the  manufacture  of  iron, 
which  had  long  been  a  monopoly  of  great  Britain.  Says 
“  The  London  Times,”  — 

«  The  Centennial  Exhibition  at  Philadelphia  has  brought  together 
such  an  assemblage  of  the  products  of  American  industry  as  to  impress 
the  visitor  with  a  strong  sense  of  the  manufacturing  activity  of  the 


238  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

United  States.  In  every  department  of  manufacture,  the  United 
Stages  are  creditably  represented ;  and  the  practical  result  seems  to 
be,  that,  in  the  United  States,  we  have  now  powerful  competitors  in 
all  branches  of  industry,  and  especially  in  that  which  we  considered 
om*  own,  — the  iron  trade.  Such  a  state  of  affairs  deserves  the  atten¬ 
tion  of  Englishmen.  It  presents  to  us  important  lessons.” 

Following  the  experiments  of  Fitch  on  the  Delaware, 
Fulton  first  made  the  steamboat  practicable  upon  the 
Hudson ;  and,  since  Stephenson  invented  the  locomotive, 
what  valuable  improvements  have  been  made  by  Ameri¬ 
can  genius,  both  in  the  engine,  and  in  brakes  and  other 
appliances  for  the  trains  ! 1  The  steam  fire-engine  is  an 
American  invention ;  as  is  also  the  extinguisher,  by  which 
a  chemical  antagonist  to  combustion  is  scientifically  com¬ 
bined  with  water  for  the  speedy  extinction  of  flames. 
Machinery  for  heading  pins  and  tacks  from  the  body  of 
the  wire,  for  making  boots,  shoes,  and  regulation  watches, 
for  relieving  the  household  of  the  drudgery  of  the  needle, 
and  the  husbandman  of  the  hard  hand-labor  of  the  plough, 
the  spade,  the  scythe,  the  sickle,  and  the  rake,  machinery 
for  every  conceivable  purpose  of  domestic  utility  and  man¬ 
ual  dexterity,  witnesses  for  the  fruitfulness  and  the  useful¬ 
ness  of  American  invention.  While  millions  of  homes  and 
farms  are  rejoicing  in  the  sewing-machine,  the  mowing  and 
reaping  machines,  by  which  America  has  lightened  their 
labor,  now  comes  the  writing-machine  to  turn  the  drudg¬ 
ery  of  the  composer  and  the  copying-clerk  into  the  pleas¬ 
ure  of  playing  a  well-toned  piano  without  the  tediousness 
of  that  practice.  But  why  need  I  reproduce  the  records  of 
the  patent-office  ?  2  America  is  bristling  with  inventions ; 
and,  though  she  had  much  to  learn,  she  had  little  to  fear, 
from  competition  with  other  nations  in  her  World  Expo¬ 
sition.  .  Nor  is  the  inventive  genius  to  be  disparaged  as 
belonging  to  a  lower  mechanical  grade  of  culture.  It  de¬ 
tracts  nothing  from  the  scientific  genius  of  Galileo  that 
he  invented  or  copied  the  telescope,  nor  from  Helmholtz 
that  he  invented  the  ophthalmoscope.3  Not  all  the  valor 
and  discipline  of  European  armies  could  avail,  were  not 

1  In  Russia  the  American  locomotive  takes  precedence  of  all  others. 

2  From  1800  to  1870,  120,298  patents  were  issued  by  the  United  States,  of 
which  79,012  were  between  I860  and  1870. 

a  See  note  at  the  close  of  the  Lecture. 


THE  NATION  JUDGED  BY  ITS  SELF-DEVELOPMENT.  239 


inventors  continually  improving  the  weapons  of  war. 
What  were  Moltke  without  Krupp  ?  Germany  has  not 
hesitated  to  erect  a  monument  to  the  genius  of  Guten¬ 
berg,  and  has  grouped  Theology,  Poetry,  Science,  and  In¬ 
dustry  in  an  attitude  of  admiration  around  the  inventor 
of  movable  type.  England  has  reared  monuments  to 
Stephenson ;  and  America  may  well  rear  statues  of 
Franklin,  Fulton,  Morse,  Field,  as  benefactors  of  man¬ 
kind. 

.  Indeed,  it  marks  the  dignity  and  worth  of  American 
civilization,  that,  from  first  to  last,  it  has  sought  the  good 
of  diversified  and  collective  humanity,  —  for  mankind  in 
its  aims,  to  mankind  in  its  results.  I  marvel,  that,  in  his 
ode  to  Boston,  Emerson  should  have  opened  on  so  low  a 
key:  — 

“  The  merchant  was  a  man. 

The  world  was  made  for  honest  trade : 

To  plant  and  eat  be  none  afraid.” 

True,  as  he  advances,  he  rises  to  a  nobler  key,  and 
sings,  — 

“  Each  honest  man  shall  have  his  vote, 

Each  child  shall  have  his  school; 

For  what  avail  the  plough  or  sail, 

Or  land  or  life,  if  freedom  fail  ?  ” 

Yes,  the  merchants  of  Boston  were  men;  and  noble, 
princely  men  have  they  been.  But,  from  the  first,  the 
glory  of  Boston  was  to  provide  for  knowledge  and  religion, 
and  open  to  men,  of  whatever  grade,  avenues  to  that  self¬ 
culture  that  marks  the  man.  And  as  of  Boston,  so  of  the 
proper  American  type  of  civilization,  it  is  cosmopolitan  in 
the  spirit  of  elevating  humanity.  I  know  a  civilization 
where  the  plough-boy  and  the  smith’s  apprentice  were 
taught  to  put  all  knowledge  in  their  heads,  and  all  virtue 
in  their  hearts ;  and  from  the  plough  came  the  statesman¬ 
ship  of  Daniel  Webster,  and  from  the  anvil  came  the 
philology  and  philanthropy  of  Elihu  Burrit.  I  know  a 
civilization  that  taught  the  factory-girls  of  Lowell,  in  the 
good  old  times  when  farmers’  daughters  went  there  to 
spin,  to  diversify  their  labor  with  editing  a  literary  maga¬ 
zine,  and  learning  accomplishments  in  music  and  the  arts. 


240  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

I  know  a  civilization  where  the  farmer  sweats  over  his 
hard-handed  toil,  that  his  son  may  go  to  college,  and  his 
daughter  may  have  her  library  and  piano ;  feels  that  an 
education  is  the  true  patent  of  nobility,  and  the  best  estate 
for  his  children ;  and  then  is  grateful  to  God,  if  his  chil¬ 
dren,  educated  by  his  toil  and  theirs,  shall  go  forth  as 
missionaries  of  Christian  civilization.  It  is  because  of 
this  view  of  the  worth  of  the  individual  and  the  brother¬ 
hood  of  humanity,  that  the  United  States,  having  set  the 
example  of  codifying  her  own  laws,  has  taken  the  initia¬ 
tive  in  schemes  of  arbitration  and  for  the  reform  of  inter¬ 
national  law  in  the  interest  of  peace  and  unity,  which 
shall  one  day  bring  in  an  era  of  culture  such  as  Europe 
has  not  yet  seen. 


NOTE  ON  AMERICAN  PROGRESS. 

Ix  a  spoken  lecture  it  was  impossible  to  give  more  than  an  outline 
of  the  progress  of  the  United  States  in  the  century  ;  and  no  audience 
would  have  been  patient  of  an  array  of  statistics  which  the  reader 
can  study  at  leisure  on  the  printed  page.  Even  the  most  moderate 
statement  of  what  has  been  done  in  America  for  learning,  science, 
art,  and  general  culture,  is  apt  to  be  received  in  Europe  with  incredu¬ 
lity  or  disparagement.  But  the  cultivated  American  cannot  be  sur¬ 
prised  or  annoyed  at  this.  He  will  remember,  that,  down  to  a  very 
recent  period,  he  has  had  ten  reasons  for  studying  the  civilization  of 
the  Old  World  where  the  European  had  one  for  studying  the  civiliza¬ 
tion  of  the  New.  As  to  England,  even  if  he  has  had  no  personal  ex¬ 
perience  of  the  fact,  his  Emerson,  Lowell,  and  Hawthorne  will  have 
taught  him  how  completely  insular  is  her  national  spirit  and  ideal, 
even  to  a  degree  that  “  makes  existence  incompatible  with  all  that  is 
not  English  ;  ”  but,  as  he  listens  to  the  tone  of  English  criticism 
upon  his  country,  the  honest  American  will  remember  how  “  faithful 
are  the  wounds  of  a  friend,”  and,  pardoning  much  to  a  chronic  and 
grotesque  dogmatism,  will  consider,  also,  that  family  criticism  more 
often  springs  from  a  secret  pride  than  from  real  bitterness  or  dislike. 
Still  less  can  any  well-balanced  American  be  affected  by  the  new 
style  of  French  criticism,  represented  by  Claudio  Jannet  and  Talley¬ 
rand- Perigord.  He  understands  perfectly  that  it  is  the  cue  of  cleri¬ 
calism  in  France,  as  of  conservatism  in  Germany,  to  disparage  the 
United  States  as  a  check  to  liberal  aspirations  at  home ;  and  he 
reflects,  that,  in  France,  liberty  is  an  imperishable  aspiration,  and 
Lafayette,  De  Tocqueville,  and  Laboulaye  are  imperishable  names. 

But  the  cultivated  American  will  be  especially  considerate  of  the 


NOTE  ON  AMERICAN  PROGRESS. 


241 


insouciance  of  German  society  touching  the  condition  and  culture  of 
the  United  States.  He  will  consider  how  slowly  new  ideas  penetrate 
the  learned  mind  of  Germany  from  outside  the  prescribed  routine  of 
its  own  investigations.  He  will  consider  how  indifferently  the  Ger¬ 
man  press  is,  for  the  most  part,  appointed  and  conducted.  Above  all, 
he  will  consider  how  short  an  interval  has  elapsed  since  Germany 
began  to  create  a  truly  national  literature,  and  how  recent  is  her 
emancipation  from  the  humiliating  superiority  of  France  in  arts  and 
arms,  and  hence  will  make  allowance  for  an  air  of  youthful  assump¬ 
tion,  which  will  be  toned  down  by  a  broader  experience  of  the  respon¬ 
sibilities  of  national  independence.  Just  now,  the  intoxication  of  a 
military  success,  which  the  sober  reports  of  the  staff-office  show  was 
more  than  once  due  to  some  lucky  accident,  leads  the  untravelled 
German  to  prate  over-much  of  “  Bildung,”  “Ivunst,”  “  Kultur,” 
“  Wissenschaft,”  and  to  assume  that  every  American  who  visits  Ger¬ 
many  must  look  with  wonder  and  envy  upon  its  higher  civilization. 
But  the  American,  who  knows  too  well  this  infirmity  in  his  own 
countrymen,  can  afford  to  be  indulgent  toward  the  Teutonic  braggart, 
who  really  has  so  much  to  boast  of.  I  have  had  much  innocent 
amusement,  as  well  as  some  patient  discipline,  in  the  supercilious 
comments  of  this  new-fledged  Germany  upon  the  United  States.  In 
Germany,  breadth  and  solidity  of  information  are  by  no  means  commen¬ 
surate  with  depth  of  learning.  A  person  of  the  highest  social  position, 
and  who  has  always  moved  within  the  sphere  of  university-life, 
asked'  me,  “  Who  is  this  Mr.  Morse  ?  and  what  has  he  done,  that 
your  countrymen  propose  to  erect  a  monument  to  him  ?  ”  Suppose  I 
should  ask  who  was  Gutenberg?  who  was  Stephenson?  — what  shrug¬ 
ging  of  shoulders  there  would  be  in  “  cultivated  ”  circles  in  Germany 
and  England! 

One  of  the  foremost  monthlies,  which  well  represents  the  literature 
and  learning  of  Germany,  in  an  article  on  railways,  written  by  a 
university  professor,  attributed  to  “  a  speech  of  Pres.  Lincoln  in  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  ”  the  astounding  statement,  that,  “  in 
building  a  railway,  it  was  better  to  finish  the  road  rapidly,  because, 
though  such  immature  work  would  cost  more  lives,  it  would  hasten  the 
development  of  the  country.”  I  wrote  to  the  editor,  that  Mr.  Lincoln 
never  was  in  the  Senate ;  that,  excepting  in  the  case  of  the  Pacific 
roads,  the  Senate  had  had  nothing  to  do  with  railways ;  and  though 
Mr.  Lincoln  had  once  urged  the  rapid  and  vigorous  prosecution  of  the 
war,  on  the  ground  that  the  salvation  of  the  Union  would  infinitely 
overbalance  all  present  cost  and  loss,  he  was  utterly  incapable  of  thus 
staking  human  life  against  the  gains  of  a  railroad.  The  editor  prom¬ 
ised  to  make  the  correction;  but  just  then  an  American  newspaper  at 
Berlin  made  a  squib  upon  his  article,  to  the  effect,  that,  on  the  occa¬ 
sion  referred  to,  “Alexander  Hamilton,  senator  from  Toronto,  had 
replied  to  Mr.  Lincoln  with  great  eloquence  and  power.”  The  be¬ 
wildered  German  Gelelirte  hereupon  sent  me  this  paragraph,  which 
he  took  to  be  serious,  and  said,  “  Though  I  have  much  confidence  in 
your  knowledge,  I  suspect  that  my  allusion  to  Mr.  Lincoln  was  cor¬ 
rect,  .since  the  accompanying  paragraph,  which  gives  evidence  of  mi¬ 
nute  accuracy,  confirms  my  statement.”  I  was  obliged  to  answer, 


242  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


“My  dear  sir,  don’t  you  see  that  this  paragraph  is  making  a  fool  of 
you?  Don’t  you  know  that  Toronto  is  in  Canada?  that  Hamilton 
was  never  in  the  Senate  ?  and  that  he  was  killed  five  years  before 
Lincoln  was  born  ?  ”  But  the  learned  editor  never  made  the  correc¬ 
tion. 

Another  journal  that  aspires  to  lead  opinion  in  the  capital,  and 
whose  editor  is  certified  by  a  doctorate  of  the  university,  some  time 
ago  enlightened  its  readers  with  an  account  of  the  American  Thanks¬ 
giving.  After  describing  the  sour  New-England  Puritan,  who  would 
allow  no  holiday  nor  festivity,  but  enforced  the  Jewish  sabbath  by 
stringent  penalties,  this  journal  discovered  a  hopeful  triumph  of 
human  nature  in  the  fact  that  the  great  national  festival  of  Thanks¬ 
giving  had  won  its  way  even  into  New  England,  and,  by  captivating 
the  hearts  of  the  rising  generation  there,  had  somewhat  relaxed  the 
Pharisaism  of  the  elders.  I  dropped  a  respectful  line  to  the  editor, 
assuming  that  he  would  be  interested  to  give  the  true  history  of  the 
Pilgrim  festival  that  flourished  in  New  England  a  century  and  a  half 
before  there  were  any  United  States,  and  more  than  two  centuries 
before  it  was  adopted  as  a  national  institution;  but  an  educated 
German,  whose  journal  has  ridiculed  an  English  author  for  making 
an  error  of  one  year  in  the  date  of  an  incident  of  German  literature, 
confessed  that  his  readers  did  not  care  enough  about  American  affairs 
to  make  it  worth  while  to  correct  such  an  egregious  blunder. 

One  evening,  at  a  salon  where  were  assembled  only  the  most  learned 

and  cultivated  society,  I  was  presented  first  to  Prof. - ,  who  said 

at  once,  “  From  America  ?  I  believe  you  have  as  yet  no  universities  : 
you  are  too  young  to  have  any  science.”  —  “  On  that  point,”  I  replied, 
“  I  prefer  to  accept  the  verdict  of  the  Berlin  Academy,  which  crowned 
with  its  prize  a  work  of  our  Sanscrit  scholar,  Prof.  Whitney;  the 
verdict  of  the  various  European  academies  that  have  elected  Prof. 
Dana  an  associate ;  the  verdict  of  ”  —  “  Ah, so!  ”  And  this  interlocutor 
gave,  place  to  a  second,  who  said,  “I  suppose  you  have  no  museums 
yet  in  America:  you  are  too  young  for  these.”  —  “If  you  intend 
museums  of  science,  I  might  remind  you  of  the  Smithsonian  at  Wash¬ 
ington,  the  Peabody  at  New  Haven,  the  Agassiz  at  Cambridge.  In 
museums  of  art  and  antiquity,  of  course  we  cannot  compete  with  na¬ 
tions  which  were  in  the  market  before  we  were  born.  Still  we  have 
some  treasures  from  Egypt  and  Assyria  that  European  museums 
would  like  to  possess ;  and  Berlin  or  London  would  be  glad  to  get  hold 
of  the.  Cesnola  Cyprus  Collection,  now  at  New  York.  This  you 
know  is  genuine.  But  how  about  those  Moabite  antiquities  in  your 
Berlin  Museum,  and  that  other  lot  from  Italy  bought  by  your  first 
Homan  archseologist  as  a  precious  find  ?  How,  too,  about  the  indorse¬ 
ment  of  the  Cardiff  giant  by  German  savans  after  American  scholars 
had  promptly  exposed  the  fraud  ?  You  see  we  take  an  interest  in 
these  matters  to  the  extent  of  our  opportunity.” —  “  Ah,  so!” 

I  was  next  honored  with  a  presentation  to  an  eminent  musician. 
“  Li  America,”  said  he,  “  you  are  not  at  all  musical.”  —  “  If  you  mean 
that  we  have  not  produced  great  composers,  nor  many  eminent  artists, 
you  are  quite  correct :  nevertheless,  your  artists  seek  fame  and  fortune 
in  America,  and  wince,  too,  under  our  criticisms.  As  to  the  love  of 


NOTE  ON  AMERICAN  PROGRESS. 


243 


music,  I  may  mention  that  two  piano-manufactories  in  New  York 
alone  turn  out  each  at  the  rate  of  ten  pianos  a  day  for  every  day  of 
the  year;  and  these  are  sold  at  prices  from  five  hundred  dollars  up 
to  three  thousand  dollars.”  —  “  So!”  and  “  So !  ”  and  “  So  !  ” 

“  Russia  has  been  called  a  despotism  tempered  by  assassination,” 
said  my  host  one  evening  at  a  supper-table,  “  and  your  government  is 
democracy  tempered  by  the  revolver.  In  your  Senate,  every  man  has 
a  revolver  on  his  table.”  This  wras  said  in  sober  earnest  by  a  uni¬ 
versity  professor  ;  and  the  company,  composed  entirely  of  official  and 
educated  persons,  laughed  heartily  at  what  they  fancied  was  a  fair  hit 
at  a  foreign  guest.  In  a  few  patient  words,  I  pointed  out  that  the 
violence  of  slaveholders  in  former  times,  and  the  roughness  of  frontier- 
life,  did  not  represent  the  character  and  habits  of  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States.  But  it  was  of  little  use  to  talk  with  men  who  had 
never  heard  the  names  of  Calhoun,  Webster,  Everett,  Seward;  who 
knew  nothing  at  all  of  the  Constitution  of  the  American  Government, 
and  met  every  fact  with  that  annihilating  threat  (in  which  the 
tax-ridden,  army-burdened  German  finds  a  momentary  consolation), 
“  You’ll  have  to  come  to  a  monarchy  at  last.”  These  are  not  selected 
instances,  but  could  be  multiplied  by  the  score.  I  do  not  adduce 
them  either  to  caricature  or  to  characterize  the  German  people.  I 
think  it  indecent  in  a  foreigner  to  caricature  the  people  among  whom 
he  lives,  by  exaggerating  their  faults,  and  ignoring  their  virtues  ;  and 
a  people  so  kindly  and  sincere  as  the  Germans,  a  people  of  so  many 
fine  and  noble  qualities,  could  never  form  a  subject  for  caricature. 
Neither  would  I  intimate  that  such  examples  fairly  characterize  the 
higher  classes  of  German  society ;  for  though  too  often  the  German 
savant  is  ignorant  of  general  subjects  in  the  degree  that  he  is  learned 
in  his  specialty,  and  vain  of  his  opinion  where  he  is  least  informed, 
yet  there  are  many  notable  exceptions,- — men  of  breadth  as  well  as 
of  accuracy,  men  of  information  as  wrell  as  of  learning,  men  of  the 
cosmopolitan  spirit  of  true  science.  The  many  modest,  manly  Ger¬ 
mans  whom  it  is  a  pleasure  to  know,  the  quiet,  learned  Germans,  of 
broad  and  liberal  training,  whom  it  is  an  honor  as  well  as  a  pleasure 
to  know,  are  a  truer  type  of  the  national  culture.  These  have  travelled 
far  enough  to  learn  that  the  world  is  not  bounded  by  the  Rhine,  the 
Vistula,  and  the  Danube ;  and  that  other  countries  have  a  civilization 
older,  or,  if  newer,  yet  in  some  respects  better,  than  their  own.  Never¬ 
theless,  such  crude  questions  and  comments  upon  the  United  States 
as  one  hears  in  the  best  circles  of  Germany  do  illustrate  a  prevailing 
tone,  and  must  conduct  to  two  inferences,  —  that  the  reputation  of  Ger¬ 
mans  for  general  knowledge  has  been  strangely  overrated ;  and  that 
Apierican  culture  should  not  seek  to  measure  itself  by  any  foreign 
standard,  but  should  build  itself  up  quietly  upon  its  natural  and  endur¬ 
ing  basis,  assimilating  from  other  civilizations  what  it  may  find  use¬ 
ful  for  ornament  or  expansion,  but  only  in  subordination  to  its  own 
broad  plan  and  lofty  aims. 

The  superiority  of  the  United  States  in  many  inventions  and  manu¬ 
factures,  which  wras  so  apparent  at  the  Philadelphia  Exposition,  was 
gracefully  conceded  by  the  correspondents  and  commissioners  of 
several  foreign  countries.  Most  conspicuous  among  these  was  Prof. 


244  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


F.  Reuleaux,  director  of  the  Royal  Gewerbe-Akademie  at  Berlin,  a 
member  of  the  German  Commission  and  Jury  at  the  Exposition;  a 
gentleman  eminently  qualified  by  scientific  and  practical  knowledge, 
by  sobriety  of  judgment  and  candor  of  spirit,  for  the  delicate  task  of 
comparing  the  products  of  other  countries  with  his  own.  With  marked 
emphasis  Prof.  Reuleaux  admonishes  his  countrymen  that  they  have 
been  too  much  in  the  habit  of  undervaluing  American  industry,  which 
they  now  find  has  outstripped  that  of  Germany.  He  points  out  that 
American  machinists  have  brought  the  steam-engine  to  its  highest 
perfection,  through  the  combination  of  beauty  of  form,  and  nicety 
of  adaptation,  with  smoothness  of  working,  and  strength  and  endur¬ 
ance  of  materials ;  and  that,  in  tool-serving  machines,  American 
ingenuity  and  skill  have  outstripped  all  competition,  in  new  practical 
ideas,  apt  adj  ustment  to  special  ends,  precision  and  harmony  of  move¬ 
ment,  elegance  of  appearance,  and  perfection  of  results.  In  American 
steel-ware,  surgical  instruments,  glass  manufacture,  gas-fixtures,  chan¬ 
deliers,  &c.,  and  in  gold  and  silver  workmanship  and  ornamentation, 
Prof.  Reuleaux  finds  indications  of  a  native  skill  that  may  well  incite 
the  rivalry  of  European  nations.  It  is  beginning  to  be  understood 
that  Americans  can  make  a  watch  as  well  as  a  sewing-machine,  a  tele¬ 
scope  as  well  as  a  revolver.  Now,  the  lesson  from  all  this  is,  that 
skilful  and  tasteful  improvements  in  the  industries  and  comforts  of 
life  mark  an  advancement  in  the  average  culture  of  the  people,  and 
may  even  indicate  a  higher  general  culture  than  is  marked  by  the 
existence  of  royal  galleries  and  museums  or  the  art-treasures  of  the 
privileged  few.  The  farmer  or  mechanic  who  buys  some  nicer  or 
more  convenient  article  of  household  furniture,  some  tasteful  knick- 
knack  to  adorn  his  home,  shows  the  spirit  of  culture,  the  preference 
of  the  aesthetic  and  the  enjoyable  to  the  purely  useful ;  and  when  the 
inventive  genius  of  a  nation  is  turned  to  the  improvement  of  all  manu¬ 
factures  in  quality,  appearance,  taste,  this  is  an  evidence  that  the  mar¬ 
ket  calls  for  such  elements,  because  the  average  culture  of  the  people 
appreciates  them.  Germany,  which  has  but  little  debt,  received  from 
France  as  an  indemnity  for  the  war  of  1870-71  a  thousand  million 
dollars.  Since  then  her  taxes  have  increased,  and  her  industry  and 
manufactures  have  notoriously  deteriorated ;  yet  the  conquest  of 
France  is  constantly  adduced  as  an  evidence  of  the  higher  culture  of 
the  German  nation.  The  United  States  has  a  public  debt  of  two 
thousand  million  dollars ;  yet  in  the  past  six  years  that  debt  has 
been  reduced  by  more  than  four  hundred  millions  of  dollars,  the 
annual  interest  by  nearly  thirty  millions,  and  the  taxes  by  nearly 
three  hundred  millions ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  American  industry 
and  invention  have  advanced  to  a  position  of  recognized  equality,  if 
not  of  superiority,  in  competition  with  Europe.  Is  there  no  token  of 
culture  and  civilization  in  these  conquests  of  peace  ?  Prof.  Reuleaux 
discerned  the  connection  of  which  I  have  spoken  between  the  general 
improvement  in  technic  and  the  spirit  of  culture  in  the  people.  He 
testifies  that  the  aesthetic  consciousness  is  thoroughly  awake  in  the 
United  States  ;  that  cottage  life  in  America  has  a  charm,  in  the  com¬ 
bination  of  domesticity,  comfort,  taste,  and  refinement,  which  Ger¬ 
many  might  profitably  take  as  an  example.  As  further  evidence  of 


NOTE  ON  AMERICAN  PROGRESS. 


245 


this,  he  adduces  the  eagerness  with  which  the  best  foreign  wares  were 
bought  up  for  the  industrial  museums  of  Philadelphia,  Boston,  New 
York,  and  other  places.  In  short,  the  aesthetic  consciousness  showed 
itself  everywhere,  in  life,  in  incitement,  and  in  the  zeal  to  appropriate 
spiritually  all  that  is  already  possessed  materially.1 

But,  though  this  inventive  type  of  American  progress  is  getting 
to  be  conceded,  there  are  still  those  who  fancy  that  America  has  con¬ 
tributed  nothing  to  the  scientific  progress  of  the  century.  On  this 
point,  Prof.  J.  W.  Draper,  who,  so  long  as  he  keeps  within  the  domain 
of  the  physical  sciences,  is  an  unquestioned  authority,  gives  testi¬ 
mony  as  follows :  — 

“We  may  without  vanity  recall  some  facts  that  may  relieve  us,  in  a 
measure,  from  the  weight  of  this  heavy  accusation.  We  have  sent  out  ex¬ 
peditions  of  exploration  both  to  the  Arctic  and  Antarctic  Seas.  We  have 
submitted  our  own  coast  to  a  hydrographic  and  geodesic  survey  not  ex¬ 
celled  in  exactness  and  extent  by  any  similar  works  elsewhere.  In  the 
accomplishment  of  this  we  have  been" compelled  to  solve  many  physical 
problems  of  the  greatest  delicacy  and  highest  importance,  and  we  have 
done  it  successfully.  The  measuring-rods  with  which  the  three  great  base¬ 
lines  of  Maine,  Long  Island,  Georgia,  were  determined,  and  their  beautiful 
mechanical  appliances,  have  exacted  the  publicly  expressed  admiration  of 
some  of  the  greatest  European  philosophers;  and  the  conduct  of  that  sur¬ 
vey,  their  unstinted  applause.  We  have  instituted  geological  surveys  of 
many  of  our  States  and  much  of  our  Territories,  and  have  been  rewarded 
not  merely  by  manifold  local  benfits,  but  also  by  the  higher  honor  of  ex¬ 
tending  very  greatly  the  boundaries  of  that  noble  science.  At  an  enor¬ 
mous  annual  cost,  we  have  maintained  a  meteorological  signal  system, 
which,  I  think,  is  not  equalled,  and  certainly  is  not  surpassed,  in  the 
world.  Should  it  be  said  that  selfish  interests  have  been  mixed  up  with 
some  of  these  undertakings,  we  may  demand  whether  there  was  any  self¬ 
ishness  in  the  survey  of  the  Dead  Sea.  Was  there  any  selfishness  in  that 
mission  that  a  citizen  of  New  York  sent  to  equatorial  Africa  for  the  find¬ 
ing  and  relief  of  Livingstone?  any  in  the  astronomical  expedition  to  South 
America ?  any  in  that  to  the  valley  of  the  Amazon?  Was  there  any  in  the 
sending  out  of  parties  for  the  observation  of  the  total  eclipses  of  the  sun  ? 
It  was  by  American  astronomers  that  the  true  character  of  his  corona  was 
first  determined.  Was  there  any  in  the  seven  expeditions  that  were  de¬ 
spatched  for  observing  the  transit  of  Venus?  Was  it  not  here  that  the 
bi-partition  of  Biela’s  comet  was  first  detected?  here  that  the  eighth  satel¬ 
lite  of  Saturn  was  discovered?  here  that  the  dusky  ring  of  that  planet, 
which  had  escaped  the  penetrating  eye  of  Herschel  and  all  the  great  Euro¬ 
pean  astronomers,  was  first  seen?  Was  it  not  by  an  American  telescope 
that  the  companion  of  Sirius,  the  brightest  star  in  the  heavens,  was  re¬ 
vealed,  and  the  mathematical  prediction  of  the  cause  of  his  perturbations 
verified  ?  Was  it  not  by  a  Yale-college  professor  that  the  showers  of  slioot- 
ing-stars  were  fifist  scientifically  discussed,  on  the  occasion  of  the  grand 
American  display  of  that  meteoric  phenomenon  in  1833  ?  Did  we  not  join 
in  the  investigations  respecting  terrestrial  magnetism  instituted  by  Euro¬ 
pean  governments  at  the  suggestion  of  Humboldt,  and  contribute  our 
quota  to  the  results  obtained?  Did  not  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  vote  a  money-grant  to  carry  into  effect  the  invention  of  the  elec¬ 
tric  telegraph?  Does  not  the  published  flora  of  the  United  States  show 
that  something  has  been  done  in  botany?  Have  not  very  important  inves¬ 
tigations  been  made  here  on  the  induction  of  magnetism  in  iron,  the  effect 
of  magnetic  currents  on  one  another,  the  translation  of  quality  into  inten¬ 
sity,  and  the  converse  ?  Was  it  not  here  that  the  radiations  of  incan¬ 
descence  were  first  investigated;  the  connection  of  increasing  temperature 

1  Briefe  aus  Philadelphia,  von  F.  Reuleaux,  Prof.  Braunschweig,  1877. 


246  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


with  increasing  refrangibilitv  shown;  the  distribution  of  light,  heat,  and 
chemical  activity  in  the  solar  spectrum  ascertained,  and  some  of  the  fun¬ 
damental  facts  in  spectrum  analysis  developed,  long  before  general  atten¬ 
tion  was  given  to  that  subject  in  Europe?  Here  the  tirst  photograph  of 
the  moon  was  taken;  here  the  first  of  the  diffraction  spectrums  was  pro¬ 
duced;  here  the  first  portraits  of  the  human  face  were  made,  —  an  exiDeri- 
rnent  that  has  given  rise  to  an  important  industrial  art. 

“  Of  our  own  special  science,  — chemistry,  — it  may  truly  be  affirmed, 
that  nowhere  are  its  most  advanced  ideas,  its  new  conceptions,  better 
understood,  or  more  eagerly  received.  But  how  useless  would  it  be  for  me 
to  attempt  a  description  in  these  few  moments  of  what  Prof.  Silliman,  in 
the  work  to  which  I  have  already  referred,  found  that  he  could  not  include 
on  more  than  a  hundred  closely-printed  pages,  though  he  proposed  merely 
to  give  the  names  of  American  chemists  and  the  titles  of  their  works! 
It  would  be  equally  useless,  and,  indeed,  an  invidious  task,  to  offer  a  selec¬ 
tion;  but  this  may  be  said,  that,  among  the  more  prominent  memoirs,  there 
are  many  not  inferior  to  the  foremost  that  the  chemical  literature  of  Eu¬ 
rope  can  present.  How  unsatisfactory,  then,  is  this  brief  statement  I 
have  made  of  what  might  be  justly  claimed  for  American  science!  Had  it 
been  ten  times  as  long,  and  far  more  forcibly  offered,  it  would  still  have 
fallen  short  of  completeness.  I  still  should  have  been  open  to  the  accusa¬ 
tion  of  not  having  done  justice  to  the  subject.” 

To  this  enumeration  must  be  added  the  repeated  efforts  of  the 
United-States  Government  to  open  a  ship-canal  between  the  Atlan¬ 
tic  and  Pacific  Oceans,  the  explorations  and  surveys  crowned  at  last 
by  the  treaty  with  Nicaragua,  securing  a  feasible  route,  and  pledg¬ 
ing  this  impartially  to  the  commerce  of  the  world.  A  new  Arctic 
expedition  is  also  in  contemplation,  notwithstanding  the  declaration 
of  the  latest  English  explorers  that  “the  north  pole  is  impractica¬ 
ble.” 

In  the  department  of  physics  alone  the  United  States  has  con¬ 
tributed  no  mean  share  to  the  science  of  the  century.  It  is  enough  to 
mention  in  acoustics  Ilenry,  Leconte,  Mayer,  Rogers ;  in  heat,  Draper, 
Hare,  Rumford,  Wells ;  in  optics,  Draper,  Gibbs,  Gould,  Rood,  Ruther¬ 
ford ;  in  electricity  and  magnetism,  Bache,  Gray,  Ilenry,  Morse,  Page, 
Rowland. 

The  widespread  zeal  for  science  in  America  was  gracefully  recog¬ 
nized  by  Agassiz  in  the  preface  to  his  great  work,  “  The  Natural 
History  of  the  United  States  :  ”  “So  general  is  the  desire  for  knowl¬ 
edge,  that  I  expect  to  see  my  book  read  by  operatives,  by  fishermen, 
by  farmers,  quite  as  extensively  as  by  the  students  in  our  colleges, 
or  by  the  learned  professions.”  A  fine  comment  upon  this  tribute 
was  given  in  the  subscriptions  to  the  Agassiz  Memorial  Fund,  which 
embraced  several  hundred  names  of  men,  women,  and  youths,  from  all 
classes  and  occupations  of  life,  and  ranged  from  twenty-five  thousand 
dollars  down  to  fifty  cents.  The  total  sum  thus  given  to  complete 
the  Museum  of  Comparative  Zoology  at  Cambridge  was  $260,674,  to 
which  the  State  added  a  grant  of  $50,000.  Here,  too,  is  an  illustration 
of  the  American  method  of  endowing  science,  which  Prof.  Iluxley, 
in  his  speech  at  the  meeting  of  the  American  Association  of  Science 
at  Buffalo,  complimented  in  these  words  :  — 

“The  English  universities  are  the  product  of  the  government;  yours,  of 
private  munificence.  That  among  us  is  almost  unknown.  The  general 
notion  of  an  Englishman,  when  he  gets  rich,  is  to  found  an  estate,  and 


NOTE  ON  AMERICAN  PROGRESS. 


247 


benefit  liis  family:  the  general  notion  of  an  American,  when  fortunate, 
is  to  do  something  for  the  good  of  the  people,  and  from  which  benefits 
shall  continue  to  flow.  The  latter  is  the  nobler  ambition.  t 

“  it  is  popularly  said  abroad  that  you  hare  no  antiquities  m  America. 
If  you  talk  about  the  trumpery  of  three  or  four  thousand  years  of  history , 
it  is  true.  But  in  the  large  sense,  as  referring  to  times  before  man  made 
his  momentary  appearance,  America  is  the  place  to  study  the  antiquities 
of  the  olobe.  The  reality  of  the  enormous  amount  of  material  here  lias  lai 
surpassed  my  anticipation.  I  have  studied  the  collection  gathered  b\  I  i°t- 
Marsh  at  New  Haven.  There  is  none  like  it  in  Europe,  not  only  m  extent 
of  time  covered,  but  by  reason  of  its  bearing  on  the  problem  of  evolution. 

What  we  need  in  America  to  continue  to  deserve  such  praise  is, 
first  of  all,  concentration,  the  building-up  of  a  few  great  universities 
(half  a  dozen  would  be  enough  for  the  whole  country)  as  centres  or 
learning ;  and,  nest,  the  endowment  of  research ,  as  is  contemplated,  l  or 
instance,  in  the  fellowships  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University  at  Balti- 

m°One  branch  of  American  culture  too  often  overlooked  is  that  lin¬ 
guistic  training  by  virtue  of  which  American  missionaries  have  won 
such  renown  as  translators  of  the  Bible  into  loreign  tongues,  and,  m 
repeated  instances,  as  the  creators  of  a  written  language  and  litera¬ 
ture  for  barbarous  tribes.  Not  even  the  famous  Indian  service  of  the 
British  Government  can  compare  with  the  mission  service  of  the  lead- 
in0,  American  societies  in  linguistic  and  scientific  attainmen  s. 

°A  striking  indication  of  the  place  of  the  fine  arts  m  American 
culture  was  lately  given  in  the  sale  of  a  private  picture-gallery  m 
New  York.  This  gallery  contained  works  of  the  most  famous  artists 
of  England,  France,  and  Germany;  and,  in  “hard  times,”  there  were 
buyers  enough  to  pay  over  three  hundred  thousand  dollars  for  its 
treasures.  In  the  chief  cities  of  the  United  States  such  galleries  may 

now  be  counted  by  the  score.  ,  , 

But  enough.  I  should  be  sorry  if  this  note  should  be  perverted  by 
any  of  my  countrymen  to  a  boastful  use.  In  all  reason,  in  the  mat  ei 
of  culture,  we  have  yet  enough  to  learn  and  acquire.  But  neither 
self-depreciation  nor  foreign  imitation  is  the  lesson  that  we  need. 
Our  calling  is  to  perfect  that  culture  which  is  distinctively  American, 

_ the  culture  which  springs  from  and  tends  to  that  which  is  spiritual 

in  man,  and  which  diffuses  its  refining  influence  over  the  whole  body 

of  the  people. 


LECTURE  VI. 


THE  PERILS,  DUTIES,  AND  HOPES  OF  THE  OPENING 

CENTURY. 

TTN  what  I  said  of  culture  as  the  perfecting  of  society  in 

the  noble,  the  beautiful,  the  true,  the  good,  through  the 
training  of  each  citizen  to  the  highest  exercise  of  knowl¬ 
edge  and  virtue,  I  was  placing  before  you  the  ideal  of  a 
perfect  State.  If,  now,  from  this  platform  you  challenge 
me  to  forecast  the  actual  of  American  society  in  the  open¬ 
ing  century,  I  can  but  repeat  the  answer  of  Socrates  to 
Glaucon :  “  You  must  not  insist  on  my  proving  that  the 
actual  State  will  in  every  respect  agree  with  the  descrip¬ 
tion  of  the  ideal.  .  .  .  But  is  our  theory  a  worse  theory 
because  we  are  unable  to  prove  the  possibility  of  a  city  being 
ordered  in  the  manner  described  ?  .  .  .  Until  philosophers 
are  kings,  or  the  kings  and  princes  of  this  world  have  the 
spirit  and  power  of  philosophy,  and  political  greatness  and 
wisdom  meet  in  one,  and  those  commoner  natures  who 
follow  either  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other  are  compelled 
to  stand  aside,  cities  will  never  cease  from  ill;  no,  nor 
the  human  race,  as  I  believe ;  and  then  only  will  this 
our  State  have  a  possibility  of  life,  and  behold  the  light  of 
day.  This  was  what  I  wanted  but  was  afraid  to  say,  my 
dear  Glaucon ;  for  to  see  that  there  is  no  other  way  either 
of  private  or  public  happiness  is  indeed  a  hard  thing.”  1 
Could  any  thing  be  more  sad  than  this  lament  of  a  great 
soul  over  the  impracticability  of  its  own  ideal  of  private 
and  public  happiness  ?  It  is  like  the  mysterious  warning 
that  haunted  Mozart,  —  that  the  noblest,  sweetest  harmo¬ 
nies  that  ever  issued  from  his  soul  were  for  the  requiem  of 

1  Plato,  Republic,  B.  y.,  Jowett’s  translation. 


248 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  249 

» 

his  own  genius  and  art.  Yet  as,  in  the  requiem,  there  are 
strains  of  hope  rising  out  of  the  very  wail  of  sadness,  so 
may  we  gather  courage  and  patience  from  the  wisdom  of 
Socrates,  when  he  further  says,  that  having  discovered  the 
absolute  justice,  and  set  this  up  as  the  standard,  —  as  the 
artist  minutely  paints  an  ideal  of  a  perfectly  beautiful  man, 
though  unable  to  show  that  any  such  man  could  ever  have 
existed,  —  so  in  the  State  “we  maybe  satisfied  with  an 
approximation  to  the  absolute,  and  the  attainment  of  a 
higher  degree  of  justice  than  is  to  be  found  in  other  men.” 

It  is  worth  remembering  that  this  ideal  of  a  State  ordered 
by  intelligence  and  virtue,  ruled  by  greatness  and  wisdom 
joined  in  one,  which  Plato  put  into  the  mouth  of  Socrates, 
is  essentially  a  republic  in  its  constitution,  —  “a  voluntary 
rule  over  voluntary  subjects,”  1  though  vested  in  the  aris¬ 
tocracy  of  intellect,  —  a  community  of  equals  ruled  willing¬ 
ly  by  the  wisest  and  the  best.  But  the  resurrection  of 
democracy  in  modern  times  has  called  out  a  class  of  critics 
who  argue  that  the  sovereignty  of  the  people,  in  its  very 
nature,  makes  impossible  a  just,  wise,  and  virtuous  State. 
The  latest  of  this  school,  Mons.  Claudio  Jannet,  in  con¬ 
trasting  the  United  States  of  to-day  with  the  United  States 
of  Washington’s  time,  ascribes  the  corruption  and  decay  of 
the  republic  to  “  the  false  principle  of  the  sovereignty  of 
the  people.”  2  But  his  criticism  both  of  the  corruption 
and  its  cause  should  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  the  remedy 
that  he  proposes,  —  the  supremacy  of  the  Roman-Catholic 
Church,  which  should  repress  the  quarrelsome  sects,  do 
away  with  the  fatal  ( funeste )  system  of  public  schools, 
and  put  down  the  impious  and  revolutionary  notions  of 
recent  times,  — such  as  the  original  perfection  of  humanity, 
the  sovereignty  of  the  people,  the  native  equality  of  men, 
and  progress  indefinite  and  necessaiy.3 

A  more  friendly  and  philosophical  critic,  De  Tocqueville,' 
says,  “  Corruption  is  the  special  vice  of  democracies.”  But 
has  the  Swiss  Republic  been  marked  by  corruption?  Or 
is  Turkey  a  democracy,  the  stench  of  whose  corruption 
now  fills  all  Europe  with  disgust  ?  Is  Austria  a  democracy, 

1  Jowett,  Introduction  to  the  Republic. 

2  Les  Etats  Unis  Contemx)orains,  par  Claudio  Jannet,  chap.  ii. 

3  Ibid.,  chap.  xxv. 


250  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


wliose  tribunals  have  unveiled  some  of  the  grossest  frauds 
of  modern  times  ?  Are  Italy  and  Spain  democracies  ? 1  Or 
was  France  a  democracy  under  Napoleon  III.?  Is  Russia 
a  democracy?  But,  if  Mr.  Schuyler’s  revelations  were 
undiplomatic  or  indiscreet,  have  they  ever  been  disproved  ? 
And  who  will  question  the  testimony  of  Koscheleff,  late 
Russian  minister  of  finance?  —  “  Employees  formerly  pur¬ 
loined  and  perhaps  robbed  by  the  copeck :  now-a-days  they 
are  too  highly  civilized  to  confine  themselves  to  such  baga¬ 
telles,  but  feast  upon  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of 
roubles,  joint-stock  company  shares,  regular  salaries  from 
banking-offices,  railway  companies,  &c.”  Even  in  Ger¬ 
many,  once  proverbially  honest,  has  not  G-rilnder  become 
a  by-word  for  swindler  ?  2  And  do  not  Germans  contribute 

1  In  this  very  year  (187(5)  an  Austrian  lieutenant  of  noble  birth  has  been 
stripped  of  his  title,  and  condemned  to  ten  years’  penal  servitude,  for  hav¬ 
ing  sold  military  papers  of  the  Vienna  war-office  to  Col.  Molostroff,  mili¬ 
tary  attache  of  the  Russian  embassy  at  Vienna. 

In  Italy,  a  nobleman  who  pretended  to  the  confidence  of  the  king  has 
been  convicted  of  forging  his  Majesty’s  name  to  the  amount  of  several 
hundred  thousand  francs. 

There  have  been  no  worse  scandals  than  these  in  the  United  States. 
The  London  Spectator  of  Oct.  28,  187(5,  in  vindicating  Disraeli  from  the 
charge  of  venality  in  his  Eastern  policy,  said,  — 

“  The  Emperor  Napoleon  no  more  regulated  liis  policy  with  a  view  to  his  profits  than 
Lord  Beaconsfield  does;  hut  very  great  men  who  knew  what  his  policy  would  be  made 
very  great  profits  out  of  their  early  knowledge.  Great  officials  in  Austria  did  not  sell 
contracts;  but  great  officials  in  Austria  were  not  ashamed  to  make  money  out  of  their 
early  knowledge  of  the  way  in  which  profitable  contracts  would  be  distributed.  Great 
Russians  are  not  paid  for  their  political  influence  ;  but  great  Russians’  dependants 
make,  or  have  made,  fortunes  out  of  their  knowledge  of  the  way  in  which  influence, 
often  secret  and  personal,  would  ultimately  be  exerted.  The  public,  always  shrewd, 
more  especially  under  a  despotism,  when  ‘  society  ’  acquires  much  of  the  power  of 
observation  as  well  as  of  the  suppleness  of  a  slave,  perceives  these  facts,  and,  after 
the  manner  of  gossips?  makes  every  story  a  little  worse,  and  therefore  a  little  more 
piquant,  than  the  reality.  Because  contracts  for  regimentals  are  sold,  therefore  de¬ 
feat  may  be  purchased  from  generals  in  command.  Because  early  information  is 
utilized  to  procure  money,  therefore  events  are  arranged  in  order  to  yield  gain. 
Because  money  is  made  out  of  statesmen’s  vacillations?therefore  statesmen  can  be 
made  to  vacillate  by  promises  of  money.” 

2  The  name  Grunders  is  applied  to  the  originators  of  a  company,  who 
deposit  the  necessary  pledges  of  money  or  other  securities,  and  thus 
procure  the  legal  authorization  under  which  they  organize  the  working 
corporation.  Of  late,  many  such  parties  have  been  found  guilty  of  falsi¬ 
fying  securities,  and  of  repaying  themselves  roundly  from  the  treasury 
of  the  company  for  imaginary  services  of  organization.  Since  the  French 
war,  swindles  and  bubbles  have  been  as  abundant  in  Germany  as  in  the 
worst  times  of  inflation  in  the  United  States.  Besides  this,  the  most  worth¬ 
less  American  “securities”  are  palmed  off  by  German  speculators  upon 
their  innocent  countrymen.  Thirty  years  ago,  the  late  King  Frederic  Wil¬ 
liam  IV.  of  Prussia  felt  constrained  to  issue  an  order  forbidding  in  his  army 
a  form  of  bogus  speculation  which  some  would  have  us  believe  is  a  special 
vice  of  democracy  :  — 

“  It  lias  come  to  my  knowledge  that  even  officials  lately  have  taken  part  in  the 
present  all-ruling  railway  speculations,  and  by  signing  bonds,  and  buying  certificates 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  251 


their  full  quota  of  frauds  upon  the  New- York  custom¬ 
house?1  Let  us  at  least  be  honest, — honest  with  our¬ 
selves,  honest  toward  one  another,  —  and  admit  that  cor¬ 
ruption  is  not  a  special  vice  of  race  or  institutions,  but  a 
vice  common  to  human  nature  under  opportunity.  It  is 
the  old  plaint  of  Socrates  and  Plato  about  the  44  human 
race  ;  ”  and  only  when  this  shall  be  reformed  44  will  our 
ideal  State  have  a  possibility  of  life,  and  behold  the  light 
of  day.”  And,  my  dear  Glaucon,  the  radical  trouble  is, 
that  human  nature  refuses  to  be  reformed,  but  is  the  one 
constant  factor  of  evil  in  society,  and  we  must  do  with  it 
what  best  we  can. 

Rahel  Yarnhagen,  who  lived  through  the  eventful  ex¬ 
periences  of  Prussia  in  the  beginning  of  the  century,  and 
whose  observation  of  human  nature  was  remarkably  keen, 
wrote,  44  We  must  not  exact  too  much  of  mankind :  they 
are  all  in  a  bad  plight ;  full  of  inbred  wrong ;  physically 
distorted  and  maimed;  inheriting  a  nature  which  they  have 
not  gifts  enough  to  understand,  and  therefore  to  use ;  apart 
quite  from  the  consideration  of  the  general  politico-social 
deficit.  If  they  do  not  lie  and  boast,  that  is  all  that  can  be 
expected  of  them :  they  are  always  paining  as  well  as  misun¬ 
derstanding  each  other,  because  their  nature  is  empty,  fool¬ 
ish,  and  tiresome,  ourselves  included  in  the  number.  We 
must  not,  however,  overlook  our  obligation,  but  see  to  this 
carefully.”  Yet  Rahel  adds,  44  The  nature  of  great  things, 
countries,  and  peoples,  is  essentially  right  when  left  to 
itself.” 

Freedom  of  will,  which  is  the  most  sublime,  is  at  the 
same  time  the  most  perilous,  endowment  of  human  nature. 
Yet  it  should  not,  for  that  reason,  be  annihilated  or  sup¬ 
pressed,  but  guided  by  the  sense  of  responsibility  to  a 
higher  Power.  John  Adams  had  the  true  philosophy , 
when  he  wrote  to  Mrs.  Adams,  July  3,  1776,  44  The  peo- 


and  shares  in  railway  projects,  have  assumed  obligations  which  often  are  far  above 
their  nSns  As  such  proceedings  show  a  state  of  recklessness  which  is  dangerous 
totlie  respect  in  which  the  rank  tf  officials  ought  to  be  held,  and  which  is  incompati- 
Ide  wiUi  the  interest  of  the  state  service,  I  hereby  order  that  ^ch  swindling  busi¬ 
ness  on  the  part  of  officials  shall  be  punished  like  gambling  and  debt-contracting, 
according  to^tlie  law  of  March  29  of  this  year.  The  chiefs  of  departments  are  to 
inform  the  officials  of  my  determination  in  the  most  strictly  private 

“Sans  Souci,  May  14, 1844.” 

i  The  adulteration  of  seeds  by  mixing  quartz  ground  and  dyed  is  very 
extensively  practised  in  Germany. 


252  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

pie  will  have  unbounded  power ;  and  the  people  are  ex¬ 
tremely  addicted  to  corruption  and  venality,  as  well  as  the 
great.  But  I  must  submit  all  my  hopes  and  fears  to  an 
overruling  Providence,  in  which,  unfashionable  as  the 
faith  may  be,  I  firmly  believe.”  Even  the  “  Positive  Phi¬ 
losophy”  teaches  us  that  there  is  in  the  world  a  moral 
order,  and  that,  sooner  or  later,  society  shall  work  out  the 
behests  of  this  invisible  Power. 

It  must,  however,  be  admitted,  that  a  republican  form 
of  government  affords,  in  some  directions,  facilities  and 
temptations  to  official  corruption,  not  common  to  the  best 
ordered  monarchies  of  Europe  ;  and  also,  that  in  the  Unit¬ 
ed  States,  for  a  few  years  past,  the  revelations  of  such 
corruption  have  been  frequent,  startling,  and  humiliating. 
But,  in  order  fairly  to  weigh  this  evil  as  against  the  repub¬ 
lic,  we  should  ascertain  how  far  it  is  exceptional,  how  far 
exaggerated ;  what  is  its  proportion  to  the  scale  of  popula¬ 
tion  ;  what  is  the  array  of  popular  feeling,  and  of  legal  and 
moral  forces,  for  arresting  and  subduing  it. 

That  corruption  is  not  the  normal  state  of  our  body 
politic,  nor  the  necessary  fruit  of  our  free  institutions,  is 
shown  by  the  history  of  the  government  and  of  corpora¬ 
tions  down  to  the  period  of  the  war.  Before  that,  pecula¬ 
tion  and  corruption  were  on  the  scale  of  the  copeck.  The 
social  demoralization  so  apt  to  follow  a  long  war  was  in¬ 
creased,  in  our  case,  by  the  fact  that  it  was  a  civil  war,  by 
the  gigantic  and  often  lavish  outlays  of  the  government, 
and  by  the  creation  of  a  fictitious  medium  of  exchange. 
Men  became  accustomed  to  enormous  figures  in  expendi¬ 
ture  and  debt ;  prices  went  up ;  speculation  was  stimulated ; 
and  the  handling  of  money  that  the  printing-press  could 
multiply  indefinitely,  no  doubt  obfuscated  the  old-fash¬ 
ioned  notions  of  economy,  simplicity,  and  honest  gains. 
Contemporary  European  nations  have  not  escaped  such 
demoralizing  effects  of  war  ;  but  in  the  United  States  they 
have  had  larger  license,  partly  because  of  the  very  sudden¬ 
ness  and  novelty  of  the  experience. 

Again  :  this  corruption,  which  is  in  no  small  degree  an 
exceptional  phase  of  political  society,  has  been  exagger¬ 
ated,  at  least  in  its  impression  abroad.  The  good  citizen, 
intent  upon  reform,  exaggerates  the  evil;  the  partisan, 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  253 

eager  for  political  change,  exaggerates  it ;  the  editor,  who 
looks  to  sensations  for  his  profits,  exaggerates  it ;  the 
stock-jobber,  who  speculates  upon  rumors  and  the  public 
credulity,  exaggerates  it ;  and  the  cynic  exaggerates  it, 
whose  profession  it  is  to  decry  every  thing,  and  to  improve 
nothing.  Hence  one  must  learn  to  discount  tales  of  de¬ 
traction,  whether  told  of  individuals  or  of  a  people.  For 
instance,  since  I  have  lived  in  Berlin,  its  foremost  preacher 
has  publicly  denounced  the  city  as  a  Sodom  that  noth¬ 
ing  but  fire  from  heaven  could  purify ;  and  a  prominent 
citizen,  after  serving  as  a  juryman  on  criminal  cases, 
affirms  that  Berlin  is  indeed  a  Sodom  in  beastly  vices  and 
crimes.  As  I  would  not  pretend  to  be  one  of  the  ten  ex¬ 
ceptionally  righteous,  had  I  taken  this  literally,  I  should 
have  hasted  to  flee  from  this  doomed  “  city  of  the  plain.” 
Three  years  ago,  the  foremost  orator  of  Parliament  in¬ 
veighed  against  stock  companies  and  speculators  so  round¬ 
ly,  that  the  Bourse  felt  called  upon  to  send  in  a  protest  to 
the  Reichstag.  Yet,  after  what  Prince  Bismarck  said  lately, 
in  the  Reichstag,  of  the  lying  propensity  of  the  press  and 
of  stock-jobbers,  whom  can  we  trust  ?  And,  to  crown  all, 
the  Imperial  Parliament  has  twice  called  attention  to  the 
immorality  of  the  city,  even  to  the  details  of  photo¬ 
graphs  in  shop-windows ;  as  though  the  average  country 
member  was  scandalized  at  the  sights  and  doings  of  the 
capital,  and  Berlin  was  likely  to  become  what  every  de¬ 
vout  German  has  imagined  Paris  to  he.  Against  such 
testimony  I  dare  not  maintain  that  human  nature  is  here 
above  its  average  in  large  mixed  communities ;  yet,  in  all 
the  outward  decencies  and  privileges  of  civilization,  Ber¬ 
lin  is  a  fair  average  of  great  capitals,  —  better  than  some, 
if  not  so  good  as  others.  I  find  it  only  just  to  the  great 
bulk  of  its  population,  that  one  should  largely  discount 
such  sweeping  denunciations,  whether  due  to  the  fervor 
of  piety,  the  energy  of  patriotism,  or  the  zeal  of  reform. 
And  if  I  refuse  to  take  without  qualification  the  testimo¬ 
ny  of  pulpit,  police,  and  parliament,  against  the  fair  fame 
of  their  own  city,  I  may  be  indulged  in  discounting  the 
wholesale  charges  of  corruption  in  my  native  land,,  ex¬ 
aggerated  as  these  are  by  the  fears  and  fancies  of  good 
men,  the  unscrupulous  detractions  of  parties,  the  sensa- 


254  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

tional  rumors  of  newspapers,  tlie  tricks  of  stock-jobbers, 
and  the  sneers  of  cynics.  Much  as  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States  has  declined  in  the  personal  dignity  and 
ability  of  its  members,  and  the  statesmanlike'  character 
of  its  debates  and  decisions,  yet,  if  I  read  that  the  Senate 
as  a  body  is  corrupt,  and  open  to  sordid  influences,  I  tell 
over  the  names  of  the  men  I  know  there,  and  say,  “  This 
is  a  lie.” 

An  amusing  illustration  of  the  extent  to  which  the 
cynical  spirit  will  drive  even  noble  minds  in  depreciating 
their  country  and  age  is  found  in  Mr.  Ruskin,  in  his  u  Fors 
Clavigera.”  Having  had  some  sorry  experiences  of  the 
tricks  of  mechanics  and  trades-people,  he  vents  his  indig¬ 
nation  in  this  wise :  “  It  is  merely  through  the  quite  bes¬ 
tial  ignorance  of  the  moral  law  in  which  the  English 
bishops  have  contentedly  allowed  their  flocks  to  be 
brought  up,  that  any  of  the  modern  English  conditions  of 
trade  are  possible  ;  for  the  modern  English  conditions  of 
trade  are,  so  far  as  I  have  had  any  experience  of  them, 
simply  dishonest.”  Having  charged  upon  the  bench  of 
bishops  the  fraud  of  substituting  sham  ornaments  glued 
upon  his  bookcases  for  the  solid  carving  which  he  had 
paid  for,  Mr.  Ruskin  uses  that  same  unlucky  pot  of  glue 
to  stick  upon  the  English  nation  his  pontifical  sentence  of 
major  excommunication  :  “  I  do  verily  perceive  and  admit, 
in  convinced  sorrow,  that  I  live  in  the  midst  of  a  nation 
of  thieves  and  murderers ;  that  everybody  round  me  is 
trying  to  rob  everybody  else,  and  that  not  bravely  and 
strongly,  but  in  the  most  cowardly  and  loathsome  ways  of 
lying  trade ;  that  Englishman  is  now  merely  another  word 
for  blackleg  and  swindler,  and  English  honor  and  courtesy 
changed  to  the  sneaking  and  the  smiles  of  a  whipped 
peddler,  an  inarticulate  Autolycus,  with  a  steam  hurdy- 
gurdy  instead  of  a  voice.”  1 

I  am  not  wanting  in  respect  for  Mr.  Ruskin  as  a  critic 
in  morals  as  well  as  in  art,  and  a  master  of  English  style  ; 
but  this  oracular  entheasm  of  his  in  the  “  Fors  ”  reminds 
one  of  Horace’s  insanire  certa  ratione  modoque.  If,  how¬ 
ever,  upon  the  strength  of  Mr.  Ruskin’s  piety  and  patriot¬ 
ism,  I  should  take  up  his  notion  of  English  corruption,  I 

1  Fors  Clavigera,  October,  1875. 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  255 

should  do  no  worse  than  the  Englishman  who  mistakes 
the  cynical  severity  of  u  The  Nation  ” 1  for  a  sober  repre¬ 
sentation  of  American  society.  As  it  happens,  I  know 
England  too  well  to  be  imposed  upon  even  by  so  great  a 
name.  Setting  aside  my  own  countrymen,  — who  are  just 
now  under  arraignment,  —  I  have  found  the  English  the 
most  honest  and  straightforward,  the  most  manly  and 
upright,  among  peoples.  This  is  saying  no  more,  indeed, 
than  that  Englishmen  were  worthy  to  be  our  ancestors. 
The  English  have  their  foibles ;  but,  so  far  as  I  know,  they 
have  but  a  single  vice  that  can  be  said  to  be  universal 
and  incurable  :  this  is  their  drawling,  sing-song,  slovenly 
way  of  speaking  our  noble  mother-tongue.  In  this  their 
“  corruption  ”  is,  I  fear,  hopeless. 

John  Adams,  like  all  men  of  vehement  moods,  had 
something  of  Mr.  Ruskin’s  cynical  intolerance.  In  1776, 
in  the  midst  of  his  enthusiasm  for  independence,  some  tit 
of  indigestion  moved  him  to  write  to  his  wife,  “  The 
spirit  of  venality  you  mention  is  the  most  dreadful  and 
alarming  enemy  America  has  to  oppose  :  it  is  as  rapacious 
and  insatiable  as  the  grave.  .  .  .  This  predominant  avarice 
will  ruin  America,  if  she  is  ever  ruined.  If  God  Almighty 
does  not  interfere  by  his  grace  to  control  this  universal 
idolatry  to  the  Mammon  of  unrighteousness,  we  shall  be 
given  up  to  the  chastisements  of  his  judgments.  I  am 
ashamed  of  the  age  I  live  in.”  Whatever  the  venality 
was  that  Adams  thus  deplored,  this  could  not  have  been 
due  to  republican  independence,  since  that  was  but  just 
thought  of,  and  was  in  a  deadly  struggle  for  existence.  It 
is  more  than  likely  that  Adams  had  in  view  the  venality 
of  British  colonists  who  were  willing  to  sell  to  the  British 
Government  the  liberties  of  America  for  office  or  gold. 
Such  avarice  might,  indeed,  have  threatened  to  ruin  Ameri- 

1  As  a  critic  of  art,  literature,  science,  morals,  and  affairs,  tlie  Nation 
is  a  journal  of  which  every  American  lias  reason  to  he  proud.  Yet  I  ven¬ 
ture  to  suggest  to  its  conductors,  that  the  excessive  use  of  satire  weakens 
the  effect  of  that  instrument  of  reform;  that  the  habit  of  treating  persons 
and  topics  in  a  serio-comic  way  cheapens  praise  and  blame  alike;  and  that 
an  extravagant  Caudle-style  of  lecturing  misleads  foreigners,  who  cannot 
see  behind  the  curtain.  If  the  Nation  were  compelled  to  spend  as  much 
time  as  I  do  in  explaining  its  burlesque  anti  satire  to  the  Teutonic  mind, 
and  in  showing  that  its  political  sarcasms  are  not  to  be  taken  as  Bible 
truths,  it  would  either  label  its  articles  for  the  foreign  market,  or  have 
recourse  to  plain,  straightforward  English  in  self-defence. 


256  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

ca ;  but  this  was  not  u  a  vice  of  democracy.”  In  looking 
back,  we  see  liow  morbid  and  exaggerated  were  the  fears 
of  that  incorruptible  patriot ;  and  a  century  hence  the 
American  people  will  look  back  with  a  smile  upon  the 
evil  prophets  of  to-day,  just  as  Englishmen  will  laugh  at 
their  Cassandras,  from  Ituskin  to  Carlyle. 

Still  the  shameful  fact  remains,  that,  in  American  politics, 
corruption  is  rife  ;  and  one  is  hardly  startled  by  any  new 
exposure.  If,  however,  we  analyze  it,  we  find  it  chiefly 
under  three  forms,  and  these  fairly  within  reach  of  reme¬ 
dies  :  (1)  The  abuse  of  official  trust  for  private  gains  ;  (2) 
Combinations  to  defraud  the  government  of  revenue  ;•  and 
(3)  Agencies  for  bribing  legislative  bodies  in  the  interest 
of  individuals  or  of  corporations.  For  the  last  a  remedy 
is  already  found  in  a  constitutional  provision,  adopted  by 
many  States,  against  any  form  of  private  or  special  legisla¬ 
tion  in  this  category  of  cases.  The  second  both  govern¬ 
ment  and  people  are  now  roused  to  ferret  out  and  punish  ; 
and  many  of  the  chief  conspirators  and  criminals  have 
already  been  brought  to  justice.  The  unanimity  of  par¬ 
ties,  press,  and  public,  in  hunting  out  the  guilty,  is  a 
healthy  sign :  it  shows  that  the  corruption  festered  by  the 
fever-heat  of  war  is  sporadic,  not  endemic  ;  that  the  dis¬ 
ease  is  of  the  surface,  not  in  any  vital  part ;  and  though 
it  seems,  of  a  sudden,  to  have  broken  out  all  over,  its  area 
is  limited  as  compared  with  the  whole  body  politic.  The 
people  are  largely  to  blame  for  the  partisan  blindness  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  neglect  of  affairs  on  the  other,  that 
have  given  to  rogues  the  opportunity  and  the  temptation 
to  cheat  and  steal ;  but  they  are  not  rogues  and  swindlers 
in  their  private  affairs,  nor  willing  to  be  ruled  by  such 
in  public  affairs,  if  they  can  help  it.1  The  suspicion  of 

1  A  German  lawyer,  now  of  Berlin,  who  spent  many  years  in  profes¬ 
sional  practice  in  New  York,  has  told  me  that  no  American  client  ever  dis¬ 
puted  his  bill,  or  failed  to  pay  it;  that  often  the  fee  was  proffered  in 
advance:  but  in  Germany  his  fees  are  often  disputed,  and  payment  evaded. 

A  German  banker  has  expressed  to  me  his  amazement  at  the  enormous 
transactions  on  an  American  Change,  with  nothing  more  binding  than  the 
word  of  mouth,  always  sacredly  kept. 

The  late  Pelatiah  Perit,  Esq.,  long  president  of  the  New-York  Chamber 
of  Commerce,  and  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  mercantile  community, 
and  also  with  the  best  foreign  society,  was  accustomed  to  say  that  the 
merchants  of  New  York  were  among  the  most  honorable  and  high-minded 
men  in  the  world. 

During  the  late  war,  in  order  to  enforce  the  use  of  “  greenbacks  ”  as  a 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  257 


malfeasance  in  office  is  a  bar  to  one’s  political  future  that 
few  men  of  ambition  are  bold  enough  to  encounter.  The 
seeming  excess  of  political  corruption  in  the  United  States 
as  compared  with  some  other  forms  of  government  lies 
more  in  the  greater  publicity  than  in  the  higher  ratio.1 
And  it  should  not  be  forgotten,  that,  in  a  popular  govern¬ 
ment,  the  exposure  of  evil  is  a  part  of  the  remedy.  Ex- 

legal  tender,  tlie  government  withdrew  the  protection  of  law  from  con¬ 
tracts  made  in  gold.  Nevertheless,  the  importer  was  obliged  to  meet  his 
obligations  in  gold,  and  to  make  contracts  upon  that  basis.  Here  was  an 
opportunity  for  rogues  to  dispute  or  repudiate  a  specie  contract  as  having 
no  validity  in  law;  but,  though  such  contracts  were  made  to  the  extent  of 
hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars,  there  was  no  attempt  to  dishonor  claims 
that  could  not  be  legally  enforced.  Mercantile  honor  was  stronger  than 
written  law.  My  authority  for  this  is  one  of  the  heaviest  importing  firms 
of  New  York. 

1  The  partisan  clamor  of  the  past  few  years,  and  the  notoriety  of  cer¬ 
tain  cases  of  political  dishonor,  have  created  the  impression  abroad,  that 
fraud  and  corruption  are  on  the  increase  in  American  official  life,  and  that 
the  nation  is  hopelesly  corrupt.  But  the  speech  of  Attorney-Gen.  Taft,  in 
New  York,  Oct.  25,  187(5,  puts  a  different  face  upon  the  matter:  — 

“  There  is  a  record  kept  in  the  treasury  department  of  the  United-States  Govern¬ 
ment,  in  which  are  entered  all  the  pecuniary  transactions.  —  all  the  receipts  and  all  the 
disbursements  of  the  moneys  of  the  government,  —  and  which  shows  infallibly  how 
much  has  been  lost  in  the  handling,  whether  by  stealing,  or  corruption,  or  mistake,  or 
neglect.  On  the  call  of  the  Senate,  made  in  the  present  year,  that  record  was  produced. 
It  shows  in  general  the  following  facts:  that  during  the  administration  of  Gen.  Jack- 
son,  which  lasted  for  eight  years,  the  average  loss  upon  every  thousand  dollars  col¬ 
lected  and  disbursed  during  that  time  was  $  10.55,  or  about  one  per  cent;  that,  in 
the  administration  of  Martin  Van  Buren,  the  loss  was  $21  00  and  upward,  or  a  little 
more  than  two  percent;  that,  during  all  the  succeeding  Democratic  administrations, 
the  losses  were  approaching  $10.00,  until  we  come  down  to  that  of  James  Buchanan, 
in  which  the  losses  upon  the  receipts  and  disbursements  averaged  $6.98  on  every 
thousand  dollars.  That  same  record  shows  that  during  the  first  Republican  admin¬ 
istration,  under  Mr.  Lincoln,  the  losses  upon  all  the  transactions  of  the  government 
—  all  the  receipts  and  disbursements  —  averaged  $1.41  on  the  thousand  dollars,  in 
place  of  $6.98,  which  re  pi'esented  the  losses  in  the  time  of  Mr.  Buchanan;  and  that 
loss  has  been  reduced,  in  the  administration  of  Gen.  Grant,  to  forty  cents  on  the  thou¬ 
sand  dollars  in  his  first  administration,  and  twenty-six  cents  on  the  thousand  dollars 
in  the  second  and  current  administration,  in  place  of  $6.98  under  Mr.  Buchanan. 
This  record  is  indisputable,  and  leaves  no  more  to  be  said  on  the  subject  of  corruption 
in  the  receipt  and  disbursements  of  the  funds  of  the  nation,  it  is  an  effectual,  ever¬ 
lasting  refutation  of  the  charge,  that  the  government  under  Republican  administration 
has  been  or  is  honeycombed  with  corruption.  It  is  probable  that  the  present  admin¬ 
istration  of  our  government  has  reduced  the  losses,  the  defalcations,  and  the  steal¬ 
ings,  to  their  lowest  terms;  that  the  method  of  doing  business,  and  of  recording 
transactions  in  booksrlias  been  perfected  to  such  a  degree,  that  it  is  hardly  to  be  ex¬ 
pected  that  greater  perfection  will  hereafter  be  attained.  Twenty-six  cents  on  a  thou¬ 
sand  dollars  in  all  the  transactions  of  the  government  is  so  small  a  loss,  that  the  best 
governments  in  Europe  have  failed  to  attain  to  it.” 

I  read  this  statement  to  an  officer  of  the  British  Government,  who  him¬ 
self  has  to  do  with  large  financial  transactions.  “But,”  said  he,  “ought 
you  not  to  be  ashamed  of  any  corruption?  Stealing  should  not  be  a  matter 
of  percentage.”  —  “  Quite  right,”  my  friend;  “but  let  us  beware  of  Phari¬ 
saism.  You  in  England  abhor  official  bribery,  and  breach  of  trust;  but 
you  have  just  told  me  facts  concerning  the  social  morals  of  men  in  your 
highest  posts  of  judicial  honor,  which,  if  they  could  be  told  of  the  Chief 
Justice  of  the  United  States,  would  compel  him  to  retire  from  his  office 
within  twenty-four  hours.  Each  nation  has  its  own  way  of  airing  its  con¬ 
scientiousness,  and  its  own  besetting  types  of  depravity.” 


258  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

posure  is  a  disinfectant ;  and  like  carbolic  acid,  though  it 
makes  the  atmosphere  more  offensive  for  a  time,  is  a  sign 
that  the  sanitary  police  are  doing  their  duty. 

The  first  form  of  corruption  —  the  abuse  of  official 
trust  for  private  gains  —  is  more  difficult  to  deal  with  than 
either  of  the  others :  it  can  often  be  concealed  for  long ; 
its  success  tempts  to  repetition ;  and  it  can  sometimes  use 
the  machinery  of  party,  and  even  of  the  law,  as  a  screen. 
Far  worse  than  individual  cases  of  defalcation  and  pecula¬ 
tion  is  that  system  of  rings  which  has  become  the  scandal 
of  great  cities,  and,  in  some  instances,  of  legislative  and 
executive  bodies.  In  great  cities,  this  finds  its  fatal  facili¬ 
ty  in  the  basis  of  suffrage  and  the  largeljr  irresponsible 
character  of  the  constituency.  Commercial,  political,  and 
manufacturing  capitals  attract  to  themselves  the  best  and 
the  worst  elements  from  the  whole  country ;  and,  as  we 
have  seen  by  the  criminal  statistics,  the  worst  elements  of 
the  foreign  population  gravitate  to  the  same  centres. 
These  all  are  voters ;  and,  so  long  as  the  city  authorities 
will  favor  the  poor  at  the  expense  of  the  rich,  the  poor 
care  little  how  property-holders  are  robbed  by  unjust  taxa¬ 
tion,  or  cheated  by  wasteful  expenditure.  The  tendency 
of  well-to-do  people  to  make  the  city  simply  a  place  of 
business,  and  fix  their  homes  in  some  rural  suburb,  is  fast 
leaving  the  political  control  of  cities  to  those  who  have 
the  least  risk  in  their  financial  prosperity  or  their  public 
reputation  ;  and  the  danger  is,  that  city  corruption  will  go 
on  from  bad  to  worse.  Boston  has  found  a  remedy  in  the 
annexation  of  the  rural  homes  of  its  sterling  population, 
thus  preserving  their  right  to  vote  in  city  affairs.  New 
York  is  crippled  as  to  such  a  remedy  by  its  physical  condi¬ 
tions  ;  and  the  spasmodic  efforts  of  leading  citizens  to  rid 
the  cit}^  of  rings,  though  for  a  time  successful,  do  not  work 
a  radical  cure  of  the  evil.  How  to  secure  the  wise  and  good 
government  of  great  cities  is  a  problem  as  yet  unsolved,  per¬ 
haps  hopeless  under  democratic  institutions  with  universal 
suffrage.  But  why  permit  a  suffrage  that  enables  loafers 
and  ragamuffins  to  vote  away  property  they  had  no  hand 
in  creating,  and  have  no  interest  in  preserving  ?  What 
“  natural  and  inalienable  ”  right  have  the  shiftless  to  ad¬ 
minister  upon  the  estates  of  the  thrifty?  To  preserve 


PEEILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTUKY.  259 

their  own  credit,  to  retain  the  really  44  working-class  ”  of 
citizens,  —  the  merchants,  bankers,  manufacturers,  mechan¬ 
ics,  who  create  capital  by  labor  of  hand  and  brain,  —  our 
cities  must  provide,  that  Avliile  the  civic  administration  is 
chosen,  as  now,  by  common  suffrage,  there  shall  be  a  dis¬ 
tinct  board,  chosen  only  by  those  who  have  taxable  prop¬ 
erty,  whose  sanction  shall  be  necessary  to  any  transaction 
affecting  property,  and  to  any  levy  or  appropriation  ex¬ 
ceeding  a  given  rate.  Then  every  man  of  property  will 
have  a  motive  to  look  after  his  own  interests  in  the  elec- 
tion  of  such  a  board,  and  the  board  cannot  hope  to  elude 
responsibility  by  an  appeal  to  a  miscellaneous  and  irrespon¬ 
sible  constituency.  The  interests  of  property  are,  in  their 
very  nature,  44  hostages  to  society  ”  for  such  municipal 
regulations  in  regard  to  streets,  fire,  water-supply,  police, 
&c.,  as  will  best  serve  the  community  at  large.  More¬ 
over,  by  this  system,  women  who  are  independent  property- 
holders  can  be  admitted  to  vote  upon  matters  in  which 
they  have  an  undoubted  concern,  without  entering  upon 
the  debatable  ground  of  woman’s  suffrage  in  the  field  of 
general  politics.  This  is  a  very  different  thing  from  mak¬ 
ing  property  a  qualification  for  suffrage  :  it  simply  denies  to 
mere  manhood  suffrage  the  right  of  disposing  of  property 
not  its  own.  In  some  States,  special  statutes  now  confine 
to  tax-payers  the  right  of  voting  money  for  improvements. 
For  the  country  at  large,  as  a  check  upon  official  corruption, 
two  measures  seem  indispensable,  —  to  remove  the  civil  ser¬ 
vice  from  the  caprices  of  party  politics  and  the  chances 
of  mediocrity  by  making  it  competitive,  and  permanent 
during  capability  or  good  behavior  ;  and  to  pay  good  sala¬ 
ries,  and  assure  a  retiring  pension,  any  malfeasance  to  be 
punished  with  dismissal,  fine,  or  imprisonment,  and  loss  of 
civil  rights ;  in  a  word,  to  reduce  the  temptations  to  wrong 
to  a  minimum,  and  raise  to  the  highest  point  the  motives 
of  dignity  and.  honor.  At  a  moment  when  the  diplomatic 
service  requires  to  be  looked  after  on  the  point  of  pecu¬ 
niary  honor,  it  is  the  meanest  of  party  frauds  to  reduce  its 
salaries  below  the  dignity  of  a  gentleman.1 

1  When  I  gave  this  lecture  in  London,  I  paid  a  compliment  to  the 
English  nation  for  its  freedom  from  official  corruption  and  dishonor.  Sir 
George  Campbell,  M.P.,  late  governor  of  Bengal,  who  presided,  rose  and 


260  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


Macaulay,  who  knew  what  it  was  to  toil  for  the  bare  ne¬ 
cessaries  of  life,  and  who  resolutely  banished  himself  from 
England  for  five  years,  that,  by  his  earnings  in  the  Indian 
service,  he  might  lay  up  enough  for  future  comfort,  wrote 
frankly  to  Lord  Lansdowne,  “  Without  a  competence,  it  is 
not  very  easy  for  a  public  man  to  be  honest :  it  is  almost 
impossible  for  him  to  be  thought  so.”  We  are  too  apt  in 
America  to  place  public  men  under  temptation  by  denying 
them  a  competence,  and  then  to  weaken  the  salutary  fear 
of  public  opinion  by  creating  around  them  an  atmosphere 
of  suspicion  in  advance.  This  pernicious  habit  of  imput¬ 
ing  dishonesty  to  public  men  was  recently  exposed  by 
“  The  London  Spectator  ”  in  a  philosophical  warning  by 
which  Americans  should  profit :  — 

“  The  Due  Decazes  said  openly  from  his  place  in  the  tribune,  that 
it  would  have  been  impossible  for  him  or  any  other  minister  in 
France  to  make  such  a  coup  as  the  purchase  of  the  Canal  shares,  be¬ 
cause  he  would  have  been  suspected  by  his  opponents  of  making  it 
for  his  own  pecuniary  advantage  ;  and  his  audience  laughed  an  assent. 
So  deeply  rooted  in  Paris  is  this  form  of  distrust,  that  it  exercises  a 
definite  political  influence,  and  sometimes  cripples  the  boldest  plans 
of  otherwise  resolute  men.  No  assertion  of  the  kind  is  too  wild  to 
receive  some  credence.  There  are  men  in  Vienna  in  reputable  posi¬ 
tions  who  will  tell  you  gravely  that  the  defeats  of  the  Austrian  army 
were  due  to  money  dexterously  employed ;  and  a  wild  story  of  an 
archbishop  whom  Bismarck  bought,  and  the  Emperor  ordered  to  be 
shot,  was  related  in  the  writer’s  presence,  without  an  idea  on  the 
speaker’s  part  that  he  was  in  the  least  drawing  upon  the  credulity  of 


said,  “The  courtesy  of  the  lecturer  has  rendered  us  a  compliment  that  we 
do  not  deserve.  We  have  corruption  in  this  country,  enough  of  it,  both 
political  and  official.  I  know  it,  and  you  all  know  it.  Here  we  keep  it 
rather  private;  but  our  American  cousins  wash  their  dirty  linen  out  of 
doors,  and  that  is  the  chief  difference  between  us.”  Several  members  of 
Parliament  and  other  public  men  were  present;  but  no  one  dissented  from 
this  statement.  Soon  after,  the  public  was  startled  by  the  revelation  that 
an  English  nobleman,  a  member  of  the  ministry,  had  accepted  a  hundred 
qualifying  shares  in  consideration  of  the  use  of  his  name  as  director  in  a 
company  that  turned  out  to  bo  an  enormous  swindle.  He  had  done  pre¬ 
cisely  the  same  thing  that  had  brought  such  scandal  on  the  American 
minister,  and  had  precisely  the  same  excuses  to  offer.  A  gentleman  con¬ 
nected  with  the  government  told  me  that  a  commission  was  once  sent  out 
to  investigate  rumors  against  a  diplomatic  agent  in  the  East.  They  found 
him  guilty  of  almost  every  crime  in  the  Decalogue;  but  as  he  was  a  puta¬ 
tive  son  of  Lord  P - ,  and  had  friends  in  high  quarters,  he  was  quietly 

dropped,  and  the  affair  hushed  up.  Such  cases  furnish  no  cover  for 
American  delinquencies;  but  they  do  show  that  corruption  is  not  special  to 
republics.  A  few  rogues  bring  great  scandal  on  the  country,  but  the  “  in¬ 
terviewers  ”  far  more.  Punch  (July  29,  187(5),  significantly  said,  “There  is 
still  one  place  where  ill-gotten  gain  has  a  bad  smell:  that  is  on  the  hands 
of  a  minister,  when  once  attention  has  been  called  to  it.” 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  261 

liis  audience.  In  Pesth  they  will  tell  you  stories  of  contracts,  which, 
if  you  believed  them,  would  make  you  believe  the  high  Austrian 
aristocracy  —  who,  to  do  them  justice,  never  think  about  money  even 
when  they  ought  —  a  gang  of  peculators ;  and  discontented  Magyars 
will  prove  to  you,  if  you  have  the  patience,  that  every  leader  in  Hun¬ 
gary,  except  Ueak,  has  at  some  time  or  other  been  sold.  Muscovites 
in  a  gossiping  mood  explain  every  thing  by  crime,  and  no  more  be- 
lieve  that  an  official,  however  highly  placed,  can  keep  his  hands  clear 
of  pelf,  than  an  Englishman  can  believe  a  Jesuit  honest,  or  a  Greek 
free  from  political  guile.  Political  society  is  honeycombed  with  sus¬ 
picion,  till  in  every  capital  of  Europe,  except  Berlin,  great  men  are 
compelled  to  defend  themselves,  either  by  a  caution  which  makes 
them  alike  weak  and  sensitive,  or  by  a  cynical  callousness  which 
ends  in  the  first  cause  of  tyranny,  —  contempt  for  the  judgment  and 
the  motives  of  ordinary  mankind.1 

The  indiscriminate  suspicion  of  corruption  may  prove 
more  perilous  to  the  public  honor  and  safety  than  is 
actual  corruption  detected  and  denounced.  Many  a  pub¬ 
lic  man  in  the  United  States  might  break  all  the  com¬ 
mandments,  and  yet  not  be  half  so  vile  as  his  political 
opponents  had  pictured  him  during  his  candidacy.  If 
“  the  price  of  liberty  is  eternal  vigilance,”  universal  sus¬ 
picion  is  a  premium  for  tyranny.  When  all  men  distrust 
one  another,  the  first  bold  usurper  will  master  the  whole. 
Our  civil  service  should  be  above  temptation,  and  beyond 
suspicion.  Prussia  has  such  a  service.  The  pay,  indeed, 
is  not  large;  but  this  is  graduated  to  the  economical  habits 
of  the  people.  The  service  is  honorable,  and  brings  a  cer¬ 
tain  social  consideration :  it  admits  of  promotion  as  a  re¬ 
ward  of  merit,  and  it  insures  a  pension  for  the  decline  of 
life.  Above  a  certain  grade,  an  official  position  in  Prussia 
is  evidence  of  a  university  education,  or  equivalent  schol¬ 
arly  attainments. 

“  What  in  the  world  will  you  do  with  these  thousands 
of  law-students  now  in  your  universities  ?  ”  I  asked  a 
professor.  “  Oh  !  ”  he  replied,  “  very  many  of  them  have 
no  thought  of  making  the  law  their  profession ;  but  there 
is  constant  need  of  jurists  in  all  departments  of  our  public 
service.  In  the  administration  of  schools,  churches,  rail¬ 
ways,  banks,  post-offices,  customs,  consulates,  every¬ 
where  there  must  be  at  hand  some  one  who  is  well  versed 
in  the  law  ;  and  hence  this  legal  training  is  an  avenue  to 

1  Spectator,  Oct.  28,  1876. 


262  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


tlie  higher  civil  service.”  Now,  such  a  service  as  this,  so 
admirably  planned  and  so  thoroughly  disciplined,  must  be 
rooted  in  the  constitution  of  society.  We  could  not  hope 
to  reproduce  it  by  a  bare  act  of  Congress,  or  the  will  of  a 
single  administration :  the  people  must  set  themselves 
resolutely  to  build  up  a  sound  and  stable  system  for  the 
support  of  the  national  life.  It  is  often  said,  that  to  re¬ 
quire  a  competitive  examination  for  appointments  to  the 
civil  service  would  work  injustice  to  the  average  citizen 
by  excluding  him  from  the  right  to  hold  office,  and  restrict¬ 
ing  this  to  the  favored  and  educated  few.  Now,  I  do  not 
dispute  the  right  of  any  man  to  be  eligible  to  office  :  I  only 
maintain  that  he  shall  make  himself  eligible  ;  that  the 
people  shall  refuse  to  intrust  their  affairs  to  any  man’s 
ignorance  or  incompetence ;  and  that  no  party  shall  have 
the  opportunity  of  thrusting  ignorance  and  incompetence 
into  places  of  public  trust  for  mere  political  services. 
Moreover,  since  in  every  State  education  is  now  so  cheap 
and  liberal,  it  would  be  no  hardship  to  require  that  every 
candidate  for  the  public  service  shall  be  educated  up  to  a 
certain  standard.  The  poor  man  would  thus  have  before 
him  an  object  of  ambition  in  training  a  son  for  a  service 
that  would  be  also  an  elevation  honorable  in  itself,  and 
giving  a  lifelong  position  and  support.  To  insure  the 
separation  of  the  service  from  political  partisanship,  every 
one  accepting  a  place  in  the  civil  service  should  thence¬ 
forth  cease  to  be  a  voter,  and  should  forfeit  place  and 
pension  upon  taking  part  in  politics. 

If  the  loftiness  of  the  Prussian  system  would  deter  us 
from  attempting  that,  we  may  take  encouragement  from 
the  English  system,  which  is  a  thing  of  recent  growth, 
and  already  yields  satisfactory  results.  In  1853  the  minis¬ 
try  called  upon  Parliament  to  enact  “  that  a  nomination 
for  the  civil  service  of  India  should  thenceforward  be¬ 
come  the  reward  of  industry  and  ability,  instead  of  being 
the  price  of  political  support,  or  the  appanage  of  private 
interest  and  family  connection.”  Macaulay  advocated  a 
system  of  competitive  examination  upon  the  ground  that 
he  who  lias  proved  diligent  and  successful  in  prescribed 
studies  shows  the  qualities  needed  for  the  public  service. 
The  proposal,  that  the  governor-general  should  have  the 
power  of  appointing,  he  met  as  follows  :  — 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  2G3 

«  There  is  something  plausible  in  the  proposition  that  you  should 
allow  him  to  take  able  men  wherever  he  finds  them ;  but  my  firm 
opinion  is,  that  the  day  on  which  the  civil  service  of  India,  ceases  to 
be  a  close  service  will  be  the  beginning  of  an  age  of  jobbing,  the 
most  monstrous,  the  most  extensive,  and  the  most  perilous  system  or 
abuse  in  the  distribution  of  patronage  that  we. have  ever  witnessed. 
Every  governor-general  would  take  out  with  him,  or  would  soon  be 
followed  by,  a  crowd  of  nephews,  first  and  second  cousins,  friends, 
sons  of  friends,  and  political  hangers-on;  while  every  steamei  aii.i\- 
ing  from  the  lied  Sea  would  carry  to  India  some  adventuioi  beaiing 
with  him  testimonials  from  people  of  influence  in  England.  The 
jrovernor-general  would  have  it  in  his  power  to  distribute  residences, 
seats  at  the  council  board,  seats  at  the  revenue  board, —places  of 
from  four  thousand  pounds  to  six  thousand  pounds  a  year,  —upon 
men  without  the  least  acquaintance  with  the  character  or  habits  of. 
the  natives,  and  with  only  such  knowledge  of  the  language  as  would 
enable  them  to  call  for  another  bottle  of  pale  ale,  or  desiie  then  at¬ 
tendant  to  pull  the  punka  faster.  In  what  way  could  you  put  a 
check  on  such  proceedings?  Would  you,  the  House  of  Commons, 
control  them  ?  Have  you  been  so  successful  in  extirpating  nepotism 
at  your  own  door,  and  in  excluding  all  abuses  from  Whitehall  and 
Somerset  House,  that  you  should  fancy  that  you  could  establish 
purity  in  countries  the  situation  of  which  you  do  not  know,  and  the 
names  of  which  you  cannot  pronounce?  I  believe  most  fully,  that, 
instead  of  purity  resulting  from  that  arrangement  to  India,  England 
itself  would  soon  be  tainted;  and  that  before  long,  when  a  son  or 
brother  of  some  active  member  of  this  House  went  out .  to  Calcutta, 
carrying  with  him  a  letter  of  recommendation  from  the  prime-minister 
to  the  governor-general,  that  letter  would  be  really  a  bill  of  exchange 
drawn  on  the  revenues  of  India  for  value  received  in  parliamentary 

support  in  this  House.  .  ,  TTT  .  . 

“  We  are  not  without  experience  on  this  point.  We  have  only  to 
look  back  to  those  shameful  and  lamentable  years  which  followed 
the  first  establishment  of  our  power  in  Bengal.  If  you  turn  to  any 
poet,  satirist,  or  essayist  of  those  times,  you  may  see  in  what  manner 
that  system  of  appointment  operated.  There  was  a  tradition  in  Cal¬ 
cutta,  that,  during  Lord  Clive’s  second,  administration,  a  man  came 
out  with  a  strong  letter  of  recommendation  from  one  of  the  ministers. 
Lord  Clive  said  in  his  peculiar  way,  ‘  Well,  chap,  how  much  do  you 
want ?  Will  a  hundred  thousand  pounds  do  ?  ’  The  person  replied, 
that  he  should  be  delighted,  if,  by  laborious  service,  he  could  obtain 
that  competence.  Lord  Clive  at  once  wrote  out  an  order  for  the  sum, 
and  told  the  applicant  to  leave  India  by  the  ship  he  came  m,  and, 
once  back  in  England,  to  remain  there.  I  think  that  the  story  is  very 
probable:  and  I  also  think  that  India  ought  to  be  grateful  foi  the 
course  which  Lord  Clive  pursued ;  for,  though  he.  pill  aged  the  people 
of  Bengal  to  enrich  this  lucky  adventurer,  yet,  if  the  man  had  re¬ 
ceived  an  appointment,  they  would  have  been  pillaged  and  misgov¬ 
erned  as  well.  Against  evils  like  these  there  is  one  security,  and,  I 
believe,  but  one;  and  that  is,  that  the  civil  service  should  be  kept 

close.” 


204  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


A  member  of  the  present  government,  who  went  to  In¬ 
dia  in  1875  on  an  official  tour  of  inspection,  expressed  to 
me  his  great  satisfaction  with  the  Indian  service,  in  its 
punctuality,  thoroughness,  and  efficiency,  and  especially  in 
the  absence  of  any  trace  of  peculation  in  a  country  where 
the  temptations  are  great,  and  the  opportunities  easy. 

An  attempt  to  apply  the  same  system  of  competitive 
examination  to  the  civil  service  of  England  was  made  by 
the  ministry  in  1854 ;  but  this  met  with  the  same  sort  of 
opposition  in  Parliament  which  the  civil -service  reform 
has  encountered  in  Congress.  “  Very  few  leading  poli¬ 
ticians,”  says  Mr.  Trevelyan,  “had  their  hearts  in  the 
matter.  It  was  one  thing  for  them  to  deprive  the  East- 
India  directors  of  their  patronage,  and  quite  another  to 
surrender  their  own.  The  outcry  of  the  dispensers  and 
expectants  of  public  employment  was  loud  and  fierce  ;  and 
the  advocates  of  the  new  system  were  forced  to  admit 
that  its  hour  had  not  come.”  That  system,  however,  at 
last  prevailed ;  and  Mr.  Trevelyan  testifies,  that  “  to  this, 
more  than  to  any  other  cause,  we  owe  it  that  our  political 
morality  grows  purer  as  our  political  institutions  become 
more  popular,  —  a  system  which  the  most  far-seeing  of 
American  statesmen  already  regard  with  a  generous 
envy.” 1  The  success  of  Great  Britain  in  carrying 
through  a  reform  which  thirty  years  ago  was  as  much 
needed  in  England  as  it  now  is  in  the  United  States,  and 
which  triumphed  at  Westminster  over  the  same  obstacles 
that  resist  it  at  Washington,  should  determine  the  Ameri¬ 
can  people  to  secure  the  same. 

Meanwhile,  unless  official  corruption  is  punished  as  fast 
as  exposed,  there  is  danger  that  the  exposure  will  so 
familiarize  the  public  with  this  form  of  iniquity,  that  it 
shall  lose  something  of  its  grossness.  And,  indeed,  there 
are  not  wanting  critics  who  charge  corruption  in  high 
places  to  the  prevailing  tone  of  luxury  among  the  people. 
Now,  this  word  “  luxury  ”  is  one  of  the  most  indefinite 
of  terms,  its  application  being  graded  by  circumstances  of 
individuals  and  of  society  for  which  there  can  be  no 
common  measure.  You  know  the  story  of  the  pietist 
who  took  her  Christian  sister  to  account  for  wearing* 

1  Life  ancl  Letters  of  Lord  Macaulay,  chap.  xiii. 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  265 

featliers  in  her  hat.  u  But,”  said  the  accused,  “my 
feathers  are  not  so  costly  nor  so  showy  as  the  flower- 
garden  on  your  hat.”  —  “Well,”  retorted  the  first,  “we 
must  draw  the  line  between  the  church  and  the  world 
somewhere ;  and  I  draw  it  at  feathers.”  Some  of  our 
domestic  manufacturers  denote  certain  imported  articles 
luxuries,  and  would  have  these  heavily  taxed  in  order 
that  they  may  produce  and  sell  the  same  at  a  higher 
rate;  as,  for  instance,  Connecticut  tobacco  for  Havana 
cigars.  And,  by  the  new  custom-house  regulations, 
every  lady  who  shall  take  home  from  Europe  more  than 
six  pairs  of  gloves,  more  than  two  new  dresses  (already 
made  and  worn),  one  hat,  and  one  set  of  jewelry,  shall 
be  summarily  convicted  of  seeking  to  corrupt  the  coun¬ 
try  with  luxury,  and  fined  accordingly.  To  pay  a  thou¬ 
sand  dollars  for  a  picture  would  for  me  be  a  bit  of  ex¬ 
travagance  that  would  justify  my  friends  in  sending  me 
to  an  insane-asylum ;  but  it  was  no  extravagance  in  my 
old  neighbor — the  richest  merchant  of  New  \ork,  and  a 
public  benefactor  —  to  outbid  European  noblemen  and 
galleries,  and  pay  seventy-five  thousand  dollars —  which 
might  represent  his  income  for  as  many  days  —  for  a  bit 
of  canvas  four  and  a  half  feet  by  two  and  a  half,  on 
which  Meissonier  had  painted  the  battle  of  Eylau.  And 
here,  by  the  way,  we  must  hold  criticism  to  its  proper 
bounds.  The  critic  who  berates  us  for  want  of  culture ; 
who  tell  us  that  the  American  is  only  a  merchant,  and 
worships  the  dollar ;  who,  like  the  architect  of  the  Lon¬ 
don  school  board,  with  such  profundity  of  self-assertion 
issues  his  dictum ,  that  “  America  is  profoundly  ignorant 
of  art,”  1  — this  same  censor  of  our  sordid  tastes  shall  not 
be  permitted  to  whisk  about  and  rebuke  oui  luxury, 
when  the  American  merchant  shows  the  best  possible 
taste  in  giving  his  dollars  over  all  competitors  to  possess 
the  best  works  of  art.  After  all,  does  there  not  link  in 
much  of  this  criticism  the  feeling  that  a  republican  citi¬ 
zen  has  no  right  to  be  a  cultivated  gentleman,  and  show 
his  culture  beside  that  of  nobles  and  princes?  If  only 
a  duke  had  bought  the  Meissonier,  what  a  noble  use 
of  wealth  in  the  patronage  of  art!  For  a  man  to  live 

i  Mr.  E.  R.  Robson,  Builder ,  Oct.  9, 1875. 


2 06  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

beyond  bis  means  is  extravagance :  for  him  to  do  this 
knowingly  and  persistently  is  criminal.  The  American 
people  do  need  a  caution  against  living  too  fast,  —  a  habit 
encouraged  by  the  spirit  of  speculation ;  but  the  peril 
of  luxury,  like  that  of  sectionalism  and  party-spirit,  the 
republic  has  more  than  once  survived.  In  1786  Jeffer¬ 
son  wrote,  “  I  consider  the  extravagance  which  has  seized 
my  countrymen  as  a  more  baneful  evil  than  Toryism  was 
during  the  war.  Would  a  missionary  appear  who  would 
make  frugality  the  basis  of  his  religious  system,  and  go 
through  the  land  preaching  it  up  as  the  only  road  to  sal¬ 
vation,  I  would  join  his  8011001.”  1  His  Letters  from  Paris 
in  1787  are  full  of  lamentation  over  the  tales  of  extrava¬ 
gance  he  heard  from  America.  u  From  these  accounts,” 
he  writes,  “  I  look  back  to  the  time  of  the  war  as  a  time 
of  happiness  and  enjoyment,  when,  amidst  the  privation  of 
many  things  not  essential  to  happiness,  we  could  not  run 
in  debt,  because  nobody  would  trust  us  ;  when  we  prac¬ 
tised  by  necessity  the  maxim  of  buying  nothing  but  what 
we  had  money  in  our  pockets  to  pay  for,  —  a  maxim  which, 
of  all  others,  lays  the  broadest  foundation  for  happiness. 
.  .  .  The  eternal  and  bitter  strictures  on  our  conduct 
which  teem  in  every  London  paper,  and  are  copied 
from  them  into  others,  fill  me  with  anxiety  on  this  sub¬ 
ject.”  2  Jefferson  was  at  that  time  minister  plenipotenti¬ 
ary  of  the  Confederation.  Franklin,  who  had  preceded 
him  in  this  capacit}^  from  the  Colonial  Congress,  be¬ 
wailed  the  growth  of  luxury  even  during  the  war  of  the 
Revolution.  In  1779  he  wrote  to  John  Jay,  then  presi¬ 
dent  of  Congress,  “  The  extravagant  luxury  of  our  coun¬ 
try  in  the  midst  of  all  its  distresses  is  to  me  amazing. 
When  the  difficulties  are  so  great  to  find  remittances  to 
pay  for  the  arms  and  ammunition  necessary  for  our 
defence,  I  am  astonished  and  vexed  to  find,  upon  inquiry, 
that  much  the  greatest  part  of  the  Congress  interest-bills 
came  to  pay  for  tea,  and  a  great  part  of  the  remainder  is 
ordered  to  be  laid  out  in  gew-gaws  and  superfluities.” 

I  have  already  quoted  the  plaint  of  John  Adams  over 
the  spirit  of  venality  in  1776,  and  have  shown  that  this 
spirit  was  not  then  the  offspring  of  republican  institu- 

1  Works,  i.  550.  2  ibid.,  ii.  191, 193,  219;  iii.  285. 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  267 

tions.  Forty  years  later,  when  Jefferson  was  still  harping 
on  luxury,  Adams  took  a  more  sober  view :  u  W  ill -  }  oil 
tell  me  how  to  prevent  riches  from  becoming  the  effects 
of  temperance  and  industry?  Will  you  tell  me  how  to 
prevent  riches  from  producing  luxury  ? 

In  1784,  after  peace  had  been  declared,  Franklin  was 
again  moved  to  write  upon  “the  growing  luxury  of  the 
States,  which  gave  so  much  offence  to  English  travellers, 
without  exception.”  But  his  economic  philosophy  now 
came  to  his  aid ;  and  he  met  the  question  with  Ins  unfail¬ 
ing  good  sense  and  humor.  “I  have  not  yet,  indeed, 
thought  of  a  remedy  for  luxury :  I  am  not  sure,  that,  m  a 
great" State,  it  is  capable  of  a  remedy,  nor  that  the  evil  is 
in  itself  always  so  great  as  it  is  represented.  .  .  .  Is  not  the 

hope  of  being  one  day  able  to  purchase  and  enjoy  luxuries 
a  great  spur  to  labor  and  industry  ?  •  •  •  The  skipper  of  a 
shallop  employed  between  Cape  May  and  I  hiladelplna  had 
done  us  some  small  service  for  which  he  refused  to  be  paid. 
Mv  wife,  understanding  that  he  had  a  daughter,  sent  lei 


only  the  girls  were  made  happier  by  having  fine  caps,  but 
the  Philadelphians  by  the  supply  oi  warm  mittens. 


1  Letter  to  Jefferson,  181ft;  Adams’s  Works,  x.  380. 

2  Life  of  Franklin,  by  Bigelow,  m.  2<4r-m 


268  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

From  all  these  reminiscences,  it  is  plain  that  the  press, 
foreign  criticism,  manners  and  customs,  the  principles  of 
political  economy,  the  love  of  good  living,  and,  to  cap 
the  whole,  the  taste  of  woman  for  the  newest  and  the 
best,  or  at  least  as  good  as  her  neighbors,  are  to-day  just 
what  they  were  a  century  ago  ;  and  the  country  is  no  more 
likely  to  be  ruined  by  luxury  now  than  then. 

But  there  is  one  luxury  the  people  of  the  United  States 
cannot  afford,  though  they  have  begun  to  indulge  in  it  at 
the  risk  of  the  nation’s  life  :  that  is,  the  luxury  of  a  phi¬ 
lanthropy,  or  a  political  philosophy,  or  a  partisan  and  dema¬ 
gogic  zeal,  that  makes  every  man  a  voter  on  the  attainment 
of  his  majority,  with  no  test  or  question  as  to  his  personal 
btness  for  this  grave  responsibility.  How  far  Jefferson, 
“  the  apostle  of  democracy,”  svas  from  the  notion  of  uni¬ 
versal  suffrage,  or  of  suffrage  as  a  natural  right,  I  have 
shown  in  the  Second  Lecture.  No  such  notion  found  place 
either  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  or  in  the  origi¬ 
nal  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  first  approach 
toward  universal  suffrage  was  in  the  Act  of  Congress  of 
1790,  which  provided  that  any  foreigner  could  be  natural¬ 
ized  after  a  residence  of  two  years.  From  this  advanced 
position  Congress  receded  in  1795  to  a  requirement  of  five 
years’  residence,  and  in  1798  to  fourteen  years,  but  again, 
in  1802,  fixed  the  period  at  five  years.  But,  though  Con¬ 
gress  has  power  to  prescribe  the  terms  of  citizenship  for 
foreigners,  the  conditions  of  suffrage  remain  within  the 
prerogative  of  the  individual  States;  and,  though  the 
general  qualifications  are  the  same  in  all,  there  is  consid¬ 
erable  diversity  upon  minor  points. 

The  emancipation  of  the  slaves  introduced  a  new  phase 
into  the  problem  of  suffrage.  It  was  foreseen  that  the 
Southern  States  might  deny  suffrage  to  the  freedmen,  and 
thus  hold  them  without  remedy  as  a  subject  class,  and 
even  oppress  them  as  pariahs  having  no  recognized  place 
in  the  social  system.  To  provide  against  this  mischief,  it 
was  sought  to  clothe  the  former  slaves  with  the  right  of 
suffrage,  that  they  might  defend  their  liberty  by  their  politi¬ 
cal  action ;  blit,  lest  the  Supreme  Court  should  overrule 
any  attempt  to  vest  in  the  United  States  a  direct  power 
over  suffrage  in  the  States,  the  Fourteenth  Amendment, 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  O0Q 


intended  to  secure  the  suffrage  to  the  negro,  was  framed 
with  a  circumlocution  that  has  already  proved  mischievous. 
The  Fifteenth  Amendment  is  explicit  enough :  u  The 
right  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  to  vote  shall  not  be 
denied  or  abridged  by  the  United  States  on  account  of 
race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude.”  But  this 
does  not  touch  the  action  of  individual  States.  The  Four¬ 
teenth  Amendment,  however,  attempts 'in  a  back-handed 
way  to  influence  that  action.  In  the  first  place,  it  declares 
that  “  all  persons  born  or  naturalized  in  the  United  States, 
and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  and  of  the  State  in  which  they  reside.” 
Thus  far,  the  article  simply  places  all  citizens  upon  an 
equality  of  civil  rights,  with  no  reference  to  their  political 
status.  Then,  without  declaring  that  every  citizen  shall 
have  a  vote,  the  amendment  goes  on  to  provide,  that  “  when 
the  right  to  vote  at  any  election  for  the  choice  of  electors 
for  President  and  Vice-President  of  the  United  States, 
representatives  in  Congress,  the  executive  and  judicial 
officers  of  a  State,  or  the  members  of  the  legislature  there¬ 
of,  is  denied  to  any  of  the  male  inhabitants  of  such  State, 
being  twenty-one  years  of  age,  and  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  or  in  any  way  abridged,  except  for  participation  in 
rebellion  or  other  crime,  the  basis  of  representation  therein 
shall  be  reduced  in  the  proportion  which  the  number  of 
such  male  citizens  shall  bear  to  the  whole  number  of  male 
citizens  twenty-one  years  of  age  in  such  State.  Vow, 
nothing  could  be  farther  from  a  tendency  to  crime  or  re¬ 
bellion  than  learning  to  read  and  write  ;  yet,  should  a  State 
insist  upon  this  rudimentary  education  as  a  condition  of 
suffrage,  its  representation  in  Congress  must  be  reduced 
in  the  ratio  of  the  number  of  male  adults  who  cannot 
read  and  write  to  the  whole  number  of  male  adults  in  the 
State.1  Did  ever  a  people  so  stultify  themselves  as  did 
the  people  of  the  United  States  when  they  adopted  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment?  For  one,  as  a  lifelong  opponent 
of  slavery,  I  protested  against  this  abuse  ot  emancipa¬ 
tion,  and,  as  a  friend  of  the  negro,  refused  to  join  in  the 


i  In  point  of  fact,  Connecticut  denies  suffrage  to  those  who  are  unable 
to  read  an  article  in  the  Constitution,  or  any  section  of  the  statutes  ot  the 
State;”  and  Massachusetts,  to  those  “unable  to  read  the  Constitution  in 
the  English  language,  and  write  their  names.” 


270  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


cry  for  “  negro  suffrage.”  Impartial  suffrage  shoo'd  have 
been  the  watchword,  —  suffrage  open  to  all,  upon  the  same 
conditions.  But  if  slavery  had  been  what  was  charged 
upon  it,  if  its  tendency  had  been  to  imbrute  the  slave,  to 
keep  him  ignorant  of  things  that  every  child  should  know, 
to  make  him  deceitful,  dishonest,  immoral,  then  it  was 
absurd  to  suppose  that  emancipation  could  at  once  trans¬ 
form  him  into  a  man  worthy  to  be  intrusted  with  the  high 
interests  of  political  society.  And  the  advocates  of  the 
ballot  as  an  educating  power  overlooked  the  fact,  that, 
while  millions  of  ignorant  creatures  are  being  educated 
how  to  use  it,  they  are  all  the  while  using  it,  in  the  actual 
government  of  society,  at  the  greatest  peril  to  its  liberties 
and  their  own.  Had  the  amendment  been  made  to  read, 
“  Or  in  any  way  abridged,  except  for  participation  in  rebel¬ 
lion  or  other  crime,  for  inability  to  read  and  explain  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  in  the  English  tongue, 
and  for  entering  into  an  ecclesiastical  or  other  combination 
against  the  sovereignty  of  the  State,”  then  the  natural  and 
legal  rights  of  all  men  would  have  been  secured;  suffrage 
would  have  been  a  motive  to  self-improvement,  a  prize  to  be 
won ;  and  we  should  have  been  forearmed  against  the  degra¬ 
dation  of  ignorance  in  our  politics,  the  attempt  to  establish 
foreign  nationalities  within  the  pale  of  United-States  citi¬ 
zenship,  and  the  intrigues  of  sectarians  to  subject  the  gov¬ 
ernment  to  ecclesiastical  control.  But  philanthropy  took 
up  the  role  of  perpetuating  the  negro  as  a  caste  ;  and  re¬ 
publicanism,  that  of  using  him  as  a  make-weight  in  elec¬ 
tions. 

How  this  educating  process  of  suffrage  has  worked  in 
those  Southern  States  where  nearly  one-third  of  the  popu¬ 
lation  over  ten  years  old  cannot  read,  the'  past  ten  years 
of  violence  and  misrule,  of  fraud  and  corruption,  wasting 
the  very  soil  with  all  that  grows  and  lives  upon  it,  bear 
melancholy  witness.  It  has  been  one  long  saturnalia  of 
barbarism  led  by  demagogism.  In  opening  the  polls  to 
the  freedman  who  did  not  know  his  ABC,  we  opened 
them  equally  to  the  European  who  could  not  read  a  line 
of  English,  and  to  the  Asiatic  who  brought  with  him  the 
castes  and  superstitions  of  the  Eastern  world.  Now  that 
our  own  egregious  folly  has  brought  this  peril  to  the 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  271 

republic,  tlie  cry  of  political  danger  sharpens  the  appeal 
to  religious  and  philanthropic  zeal  to  counteract  it  by 
education.  But  this  is  repairing  the  timbers  of  the  bridge 
while  the  foundations  are  being  swept  away  by  the  flood. 
Either  a  limitation  of  suffrage  by  a  strict  educational  test, 
or  compulsory  education  in  every  State ;  and  I  see  not 
well  how  to  get  the  one  without  the  other. 

Prof.  W.  G.  Sumner,  whose  studies  in  political  science 
entitle  his  opinions  to  serious  respect,  has  said,  44  Reform 
does  not  seem  to  me  to  lie  in  restricting  the  suffrage,  or  in 
other  arbitrary  measures  of  a  revolutionary  nature.  They 
are  impossible,  if  they  were  desirable.  Experience  is  the 
only  teacher  whose  authority  is  admitted  in  this  school ; 
and  I  look  to  experience  to  teach  us  all,  that  the  power 
of  election  must  be  used  to  select  competent  men  to  deal 
with  questions,  and  not  to  indirectly  decide  the  questions 
themselves.” 1  But  what  is  there  of  an  “  arbitrary  ”  nature 
in  insisting  that  every  man  who  would  vote  upon  public 
affairs  shall  be  able  to  read,  so  as  to  inform  himself  of  the 
principles  and  aims  of  parties  and  candidates?  And  what 
could  be  more  44  revolutionary,”  more  utterly  subversive 
of  the  government  as  established  by  the  fathers,  than  this 
letting  in  the  ignorant  and  irresponsible  masses  to  share 
in  its  administration  ?  The  44  revolution  ”  that  would 
transform  Jefferson’s  ideal  government  of  a  44  natural  aris¬ 
tocracy  ”  chosen  by  44  men  of  ripe  years  and  sane  mind, 
who  either  pay  or  fight  for  their  country,’  into  a  moboc- 
racy  of  ignorance,  idleness,  bluster,  and  fraud,  that 
44 revolutionary  measure”  has  already  foisted  itself  into 
the  Constitution  under  cover  of  justice  to  the  negro,  and 
protection  against  rebellion ;  and  all  the  wisdom  and 
patriotism  of  the  nation  are  now  required  to  save  the  Con¬ 
stitution,  the  government,  society  itself,  from  being  shat¬ 
tered  by  this  explosive  element  in  the  organic  law .  ‘I 
expect,”  says  Prof.  Sumner,  44  that  this  experience  will  be 
very  painful ;  and  I  expect  it  very  soon.  Has,  then,  the 
science  of  politics  no  higher  lesson  than  the  old  laissez- 
faire  habit,  the  drifting,  do-nothing  policy,  that  waits  for 
some  painful  experience  to  rouse  us  to  exertion,  and  then 
runs  on  as  listlessly  as  before?  Shall  we  bring  an  evil 

i  Nortli-American  Review,  January,  187G,  p.  86. 


272  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

upon  ourselves,  and  then  wait  for  experience  to  teach  us 
how  evil  and  bitter  it  is  ?  Prof.  Sumner’s  plank  of  select¬ 
ing  “competent  men  to  deal  with  questions”  is  good 
timber  to  build  the  bridge  after  we  shall  have  braced  the 
piers  against  the  furious  flood  we  have  let  in  upon  them 
by  the  breach  we  have  made  in  the  dam.  Either  that 
huge  gap  of  universal  suffrage  must  be  stopped,  or  a 
choice  of  compulsory  education  be  built  to  regulate  the 
flow.  How  are  “competent  men”  to  be  selected,  unless 
the  voters  shall  know  enough  to  realize  the  importance  of 
questions  to  be  dealt  with,  and  the  competence  of  candi¬ 
dates  to  deal  with  them  ?  We  must  look  first  to  the  foun¬ 
dation  ;  must  raise  the  voter,  either  by  raising  the  standard 
of  suffrage,  or  by  creating  better  material  through  the 
compulsory  training  of  the  schools. 

What  we  really  need  is  character ;  but  the  attempt  to 
set  up  a  moral  test  for  voters,  such  as  honesty  or  truth, 
would  only  lead  to  hypocrisy  in  the  Church,  and  to  Phari¬ 
saism  in  the  State.  We  are  no  longer  in  the  Massachu¬ 
setts  Colony  of  1639,  where,  on  the  day  of  the  public  fast, 
a  member  of  the  Boston  church  was  openly  admonished  by 
the  pastor,  in  the  name  of  the  church,  “  for  selling  his  wares 
at  excessive  rates,  to  the  dishonor  of  God’s  name,  the  offence 
of  the  General  Court,  and  the  public  scandal  of  the  coun¬ 
try.”  1  Could  such  discipline  be  made  international,  it 
would  cause  a  squirming,  not  only  among  American  trades¬ 
men,  but  among  foreign  tradesmen  that  Americans  do  wot 
of.  But,  though  the  State  cannot  set  up  a  test  of  morality, 
it  can  fix  a  standard  of  knowledge.  We  cannot  know 
how  to  read  a  man’s  heart ;  but  we  can  know  if  he  can 
read  a  book.  And,  though  knowledge  does  not  guarantee 
all  the  virtues,  crime  is  so  generally  associated  with  igno¬ 
rance,  that  we  may  look  hopefully  to  knowledge  as  a  cor¬ 
rective  :  hence,  for  its  own  preservation,  society  is  bound 
to  insist  that  every  voter  shall  be  in  condition  for  the  free 
and  intelligent  exercise  of  his  suffrage.  We  need  no 
further  experience  to  teach  us  that :  we  cannot  hope  for 
“  competent  men  ”  as  rulers  till  we  practise  that. 

Some  such  system  as  Mr.  Hare  has  recommended  for 
securing  the  rights  of  minorities  would  tend  to  purify  the 

1  Flint’s  Eccles.  History  of  New  England,  i.  388. 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  273 

polls,  and  would  relieve  elections  of  the  most  dangerous 
elements  of  party-strife.1 

But  some  one  will  say,  “It  is  all  very  well  for  you,  who 
would  be  likely  to  retain  a  place  among  voters  under  any 
system  of  classification,  to  propose  a  restriction  of  suffrage  ; 
but  why  should  you  deny  this  right  of  manhood  to  those 
who  have  been  less  favored  in  education  and  position  than 
yourself  ?  ”  I  respect  this  appeal,  and,  since  it  is  personal, 
beg  permission  to  answer  it  with  a  fact  of  personal  experi¬ 
ence  ;  which  is,  that,  for  years  after  I  had  attained  to  ma¬ 
jority,  I  lived  in  New  Haven  under  a  legal  disqualification 
for  voting,  but  never  felt  this  to  be  a  restriction  upon  my 
manhood,  nor  an  injustice  to  me  as  a  citizen.  As  a  public 
teacher  of  morals  and  religion,  I  had  a  recognized  position 
in  the  community :  but  education  and  position  did  not 
avail  one  whit  toward  making  me  a  voter ;  and  I  saw  the 
ignorant  and  the  vicious  going  to  the  polls  to  perform  a 
function  for  which  I  had  not  the  required  fitness.  The 
reason  was,  that  the  law  of  Connecticut  at  that  time  re¬ 
quired,  that,  in  order  to  vote,  one  must  be  the  owner  of 
real  estate  to  a  small  amount.  My  salary  left  me  no  sur¬ 
plus  to  invest  in  such  a  dignity ;  and  I  could  not  demean 
myself  to  do  what  others  about  me  were  doing,  —  accept  a 
deed  of  land  the  day  before  election,  giving  a  quit-deed  to 
return  it  the  day  after.  Had  the  law  continued,  I  should 
have  “  died  without  the  sight  ”  of  that  promised  land. 
Yet  I  never  felt  this  to  be  a  personal  grievance,  nor  the 
privation  of  a  right.  I  must  here  insist  once  more,  that 
voting  is  not  a  prerogative  of  anybody’s  manhood  or 
womanhood ;  that  no  human  being  is  born  with  a  natural 
and  inalienable  right  to  go  to  the  polls  to  vote,  or  be  voted 
for.  My  judgment  approved  of  some  conditions  of  suffrage 
for  the  security  of  liberty  and  order,  and  for  good  govern¬ 
ment  :  the  property  qualification  might  not  be  the  most 
judicious ;  but  any  qualification  must  be  unequal  and  im¬ 
perfect  in  its  application.  If  the  law  of  New  York  should 
limit  the  decision  of  measures  affecting  property  to  the 
owners  of  real  estate,  I  should  not  feel  myself  touched  in 
any  right  of  manhood  or  of  citizenship  ;  for  what  right  or 
what  qualification  have  I  for  levying  upon  the  property  of 

1  The  Election  of  Representatives,  by  Thomas  Hare. 


£74  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

an  Actor,  a  Stewart,  a  Vanderbilt?  In  what  respect  would 
my  manhood  be  abridged  if  I  should  be  required  to  keep 
to  my  library,  and  leave  such  men  to  the  care  of  their 
ledgers  ?  The  merchants,  manufacturers,  and  mechanics 
of  New  Haven,  who  had  chosen  me  to  be  their  teacher,  did 
not  rate  their  manhood  above  mine  because  they  could 
vote,  and  I  could  not.  Moreover,  my  studies  in  history 
and  political  philosophy  had  already  taught  me,  that  even 
political  power  does  not  reside  in  place,  or  in  the  polls, 
but  in  personality  ;  that  time  advances  in  the  direction  of 
ideas,  and  that  one  good  idea  may  have  more  weight  than 
a  thousand  votes.  A  droll  illustration  of  this  occurred  at 
that  period.  One  day,  during  the  fierce  presidential  con¬ 
test  between  Mr.  Clay  and  Mr.  Polk,  I  chanced  to  be  re¬ 
turning  to  New  Haven  from  New  York  by  steamboat,  and, 
to  while  away  time,  entered  into  a  friendly  discussion  of 
the  tariff.  A  group  gathered  round ;  and  for  some  three 
hours  I .  maintained  the  cause  of  free  trade  against  a 
dozen  protectionists.  It  was  but  a  free-and-easy  steam¬ 
boat  talk ;  yet  hardly  had  I  reached  home  before  the  town 
was  on  lire  with  the  report  that  I  had  been  making  a 
speech  on  board  the  boat  that  might  damage  Mr.  Clay's 
prospects  in  the  election.  Some  influential  Whigs  of  my 
congregation  absented  themselves  from  the  next  public 
service,  and  sundry  citizens  favored  me  with  remonstrances 
and  admonitions.  What  a  laughable  commentary  it  was 
upon  the  power  of  the  ballot,  that  a  beardless  youth,  who 
had  never  cast  a  vote,  could  put  a  lot  of  politicians  into  a 
scare  by  venting  a  few  ideas  !  And  what  donkeys  “  we  the 
people  of  the  United  States  ”  do  make  of  ourselves  by  our 
adulation  of  the  ballot-box  as  the  symbol  of  power !  He 
who  holds  converse  with  ideas,  who  grasps  a  principle, 
who  states  a  truth  so  clearly  that  they  that  run  may  read 
it,  lays  hold  upon  the  inner  sources  of  power.  He  need 
not  concern  himself  about  parties  or  majorities.  Events 
follow  ideas,  and  time  will  take  care  of  truth.  Such  a 
one  may  never  have  office,  never  be  popular,  but  at  last 
may  approve  his  manhood  as  the  friendly  counsellor  of 
statesmen,  the  unofficial  leader  of  parliaments  and  peoples. 

Bluntschli  has  well  pointed  the  distinction  between 
political  equality  and  eligibility  to  office.  “  It  is  an  ad- 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  275 

vance  in  true  equality,  that  the  modern  State  opens  to  all, 
in  like  manner,  the  way  to  public  office,  and  no  longer 
reserves  this  to  privileged  classes.  But  it  is  a  false 
equality  to  appoint  by  lot  the  officials,  —  for  whom  a 
thorough  preparatory  training  is  an  indispensable  neces- 
sity  to  good  official  service, — instead  of  making  the 
bestowal  of  office  dependent  upon  examination,  capacity, 
and  the  selection  of  the  fittest. ” 1  This  wise  discrimina¬ 
tion  he  enforces  by  the  vital  distinction  between  the 
people  as  a  nation,  a  unified  moral  person  incorporated 
in  a  constitution,  and  a  mere  conglomerate  of  all  the 
inhabitants  within  the  boundaries  of  the  State.  Offices 
should  exist  to  serve  the  body  politic,  and  not  to  give 
places  to  persons  or  parties  as  members  of  the  political 
community.  This  holds  also  of  voting.  Dr.  Franklin 
threw  ridicule  upon  a  property  qualification  for  voting 
by  his  story  of  the  man  admitted  to  vote  as  the  owner  of 
an  ass.  The  ass  dying,  the  man  could  not  vote  in  the 
following  year.  Query,  Did  the  man  vote,  or  the  ass  ? 
But  “  manhood  suffrage  ”  really  brings  asses  to  the  polls 
in  droves.  A  wiser  condition  of  suffrage  is  education, 
since  education  once  acquired  becomes  an  inalienable 
possession  of  the  man  himself. 

A  system  of  compulsory  education  would  tend  to  settle 
two  other  questions  that  now  threaten  the  peace  of  the 
country,  —  that  of  religion  in  the  schools,  and  that  of  race 
distinctions.  Compulsory  education  should  be  limited  to 
the  plainer  elements  of  knowledge,  in  reading,  writing, 
arithmetic,  geography,  history,  &c. :  these  every  child 
under  the  age  of  twelve  should  be  obliged  to  master, 
whether  in  the  public  school,  a  private  school,  or  by  tui¬ 
tion  at  home,  —  in  the  last  two  cases,  the  fact  to  be  duly 
certified.  This  education  the  State  must  insist  upon  as 
obligatory  upon  all  its  citizens,  without  exception  ;  and 
for  this  it  is  bound  to  make  provision  in  schools  of  its 
own.2  The  State  may  add  to  these,  at  its  discretion, 

1  Lelire  von  Modernen  Staat,  iii.  55. 

2  For  a  few  years  past,  a  law  of  compulsory  education  has  been  in  force 
in  the  State  of  New  York.  This  law  provides  that  every  child  between  the 
ages  of  eight  and  fourteen  years  shall  attend  school  for  fourteen  weeks  in 
every  year,  of  which  eight  weeks  must  be  consecutive;  or  shall  receive 
equivalent  instruction  at  home.  No  child  can  be  employed  in  any  labor 


0^0  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

schools  of  a  higher  grade ;  hut  the  law  of  compulsion 
should  end  with  the  elementary  training,  and  leave 
entirely  to  parental  or  other  private  methods  instruction 
in  religion  and  in  foreign  tongues. 

This  last  point  brings  us  face  to  face  with  the  latest 
aspect  of  the  race-question  in  the  United  States.  Singu¬ 
larly  enough,  the  most  formidable  phase  of  the  race-ques¬ 
tion  is  not  the  political  status  of  the  negroes  and  the 
Chinese,  as  European  observers  imagine,  but  the  moral 
and  political  attitude  of  a  portion  of  the  German  immi¬ 
gration.  The  Irish  can  be  dangerous  only  through  igno¬ 
rance,  which  makes  them  tools  of  politicians,  or  through 
a  religious  training  that  makes  them  tools  of  priest¬ 
craft  ;  and  even  the  small  measure  of  compulsory  educa¬ 
tion  that  I  have  insisted  on  would  help  to  emancipate 
them  from  both.  They  mingle  kindly  with  the  native 
stock ;  and  though  still  clannish,  and  fond  of  a  row,  they 
are  loyal  to  the  country  that  has  endowed  them  with 
manhood,  liberty,  and  comfort. 

From  the  negro  and  the  Chinese  society  has  little  to 
fear,  so  long  as  they  are  let  alone,  provided  always  that 
education  up  to  a  certain  standard  be  made  a  condition  of 
suffrage.  The  negroes  are  a  docile  race,  prone  to  indo¬ 
lence,  good-natured,  easily  contented,  and,  though  addicted 
to  petty  vices,  not  likely  to  array  themselves  in  open  hos¬ 
tility  to  the  laws  or  to  their  neighbors.  Their  behavior 

or  business  so  as  to  conflict  with  this  requirement,  under  a  penalty  of  fifty 
dollars  on  the  employer. 

The  trustee  of  every  school-district,  or  the  corresponding  official,  is  to 
make  a  semi-annual  visitation  of  all  manufacturing  establishments  where 
children  are  employed,  to  see  that  the  law  is  obeyed.  Penalties  are  affixed 
for  violation  of  the  law  by  parents  or  guardians.  School-books  are  to  be 
provided  at  the  public  expense  in  case  of  necessity.  In  case  of  obstinate 
refusal  of  a  child  to  attend  school,  he  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  truant;  and  the 
trustees  or  school-board  of  each  town  are  to  make  arrangements  for  the 
confinement  and  discipline  of  truants  as  may  be  necessary.  The  following 
cogent  arguments  secured  the  passage  of  this  law.  The  report  of  the  com¬ 
mittee  demonstrated  from  an  analysis  of  the  last  census,  Jirst,  that,  on  the 
average,  in  this  country  illiterate  persons  furnish  ten  times  the  number  of 
paupers  that  they  would  if  given  such  an  education  as  our  free  schools 
offer  gratis;  secondly,  that,  in  the  State  of  New  York,  wo  have  one  hun¬ 
dred  and  eighty-nine  thousand  adults  who  cannot  read  and  write,  of  whom 
seventy -three  thousand  are  males,  and  hence  are  or  may  be  voters;  thirdly, 
that  this  State  expends  twelve  millions  of  dollars  a  year  upon  free  schools, 
thus  providing  a  good  elementary  education  for  every  one  of  the  million 
and  a  half  of  school-children  in  the  State  free  of  cost ;  fourthly,  that  one- 
third  of  the  children  of  the  school-age  are  on  the  average  each  year  kept 
out  of  school  altogether. 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  27 T 

during  the  war,  their  patience,  and  faith  in  the  hope  of 
emancipation,  and  their  self-restraint  amid  temptations  to 
plunder  and  massacre,  should  satisfy  their  former  masters 
that  they  have  nothing  to  fear  from  the  negroes,  if  they 
will  but  let  them  alone  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  liberties 
and  rights ;  or  rather  if  outside  politicians  and  party 
tricksters  will  leave  both  whites  and  blacks  at  the  South 
alone  to  adjust  themselves  to  their  new  relations  with 
time  and  experience.  Of  themselves,  the  negroes  would 
hardly  organize  a  race  party ;  and,  though  led  into  this 
error  by  bad  advice  and  bad  example,  their  native  saga¬ 
city  is  teaching  them  to  break  the  line  of  color  in  politics, 
in  order  that  the  best  of  the  blacks  may  join  the  best  of 
the  whites  in  saving  society  from  the  worst  of  both  races. 
Time  is  here  the  best  reconciler. 

How  far  the  present  apparent  conflict  of  races  in  the 
South  is  due  to  the  mistaken  policy  upon  which  the  war 
was  conducted,  and  peace  concluded,  I  have  shown  in  a 
preceding  Lecture.  The  Rebellion  was  not  a  revolt  of  the 
Southern  people :  it  was  an  organic  attempt  on  the  part 
of  States  to  break  up  the  Union  by  secession.  The  State 
organizations  were  put  in  motion  to  destroy  the  govern¬ 
ment  to  which  they  owed  their  existence  :  hence  they  for¬ 
feited  all  recognition  as  States.  They  were  not  States 
outside  of  the  Union;  neither  were  they  States  within  the 
Union  as  integral  members  to  be  conquered  back  to  their 
allegiance :  the  States  as  political  entities  had  lapsed  by 
their  own  suicidal  act;  and  there  remained  only  a  territory 
under  the  Union,  and  a  population  to  be  made  obedient  to 
its  laws.  Slavery,  being  the  mere  creature  of  State  law, 
perished  in  the  self-annihilation  of  the  State.1  It  was  then 
open  to  the  government  of  the  United  States  to  erect  the 
pacified  Southern  Territories  into  States  as  one  by  one  they 
should  renounce  the  dogma  of  secession,  establish  a  repub¬ 
lican  form  of  government,  make  all  men  equal  before  the 
law,  and  open  suffrage  to  all  upon  the  same  conditions. 
By  the  salutary  working  of  human  nature  seeking  its  own 
interests,  some  States  would  have  been  constituted  and 

1  See  my  address  of  June  20,  1861,  in  tlie  Independent  of  July  11;  also 
my  discourse  on  Abraham  Lincoln,  April  30,  1865  (Loyal  Publication  So¬ 
ciety). 


278  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

admitted  to  the  Union  sooner  than  others,  thus  forestall¬ 
ing  the  danger  of  “  a  solid  South.”  And  just  as  political 
parties  in  the  North  have  bidden  for  the  Irish  vote,  the 
German  vote,  the  working-man’s  vote,  so  parties  in  the 
South  would  have  courted  the  negro  vote,  thus  merging 
the  “conflict  of  races”  in  their  own  conflict  of  political 
interests.  But  the  erroneous  theory  of  dealing  with 
seceded  States  having  been  adopted  at  the  outbreak  of 
the  Rebellion,  common  sense  and  human  nature  were  lost 
sight  of  in  the  rigmarole  of  “  reconstruction.”  For  one,  I 
am  not  in  the  least  disappointed  in  the  consequences  of 
making  the  negro  a  specialty  of  politics  and  philanthropy, 
instead  of  treating  him  simply  as  a  man,  to  be  aided  and 
protected  just  as  other  men,  neither  more  nor  less.  Hav¬ 
ing  fought  for  twenty  years  for  the  emancipation  of  the 
slave,  —  when  to  care  for  the  negro  was  to  risk  what  most 
men  prize  in  life,  —  the  moment  the  slave  was  made  a  free¬ 
man  before  the  law,  I  felt  bound  in  his  interest  as  a  man, 
no  less  than  in  the  interest  of  society  and  the  State,  to 
protest  against  coddling  the  freedman  as  “  the  ward  of  the 
nation.”  Directly  after  the  war,  a  worthy  black  man  ap¬ 
plied  to  me  for  aid  in  starting  a  special  theological  school 
for  black  men  in  Ohio.  I  declined.  With  much  surprise 
he  said,  “  I  was  sent  to  you,  sir,  as  a  strong  friend  of  my 
race.”  —  “  Exactly  so  ;  and  it  is  as  a  friend  of  your  race 
that  I  decline  to  aid  a  project,  which,  now  that  you  are 
free,  would  stamp  you  as  a  separate  caste.  In  times  of 
obloquy  I  did  what  I  could  to  aid  Oberlin  College,  because 
there  the  black  man  was  treated  as  the  equal  of  the  white 
in  all  opportunities  for  study  and  improvement ;  and  now 
you  ask  me  to  turn  my  back  on  Oberlin,  which  has  fought 
your  battle,  and  help  you  start  a  rival  caste  college  near 
hy  in  Ohio.  I  shall  do  no  such  thing.  In  any  commu¬ 
nity  where  as  yet  you  have  no  opportunity  for  equal  edu¬ 
cation,  I  will  help  your  schools  and  churches  on  the 
ground  that  they  are  needed  and  are  poor,  but  not  on  the 
plea  that  they  are  black.  If  your  race  would  rise,  you 
must  at  once  begin  to  act  as  men,  and  not  expect  to  be 
either  pitied  or  petted  as  negroes.”  My  applicant  was 
sorely  puzzled  at  the  discovery,  that  though  it  were  worth 
the  blood  and  treasure  of  the  nation  to  redeem  the  slave 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  279 

because  he  was  a  man,  yet,  on  becoming  a  freeman,  lie  was 
only  a  man,  and  must  not  look  for  exceptional  favors  “  on 
account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude.” 
Some  time  after,  I  was  much  gratified  at  seeing  this  whole¬ 
some  and  needed  truth  put  forth  with  his  accustomed  man¬ 
liness  and  vigor  by  that  noble  and  eloquent  champion  of 
freedom  and  equality,  Mr.  Frederick  Douglass.  In  a 
Fourth-of-July  address  at  Hillsdale,  Mr.  Douglass  said  to 
and  for  his  race,  — 

“  All  we  ask  is  a  fair  field  to  work  in,  and  the  white  man  to  leave 
us  alone.  We  have  been  injured  more  than  we  have  been  helped  by 
men  who  have  professed  to  be  our  friends.  Fellow-citizens,  we  must 
stop  these  men  from  begging  for  us.  They  misrepresent  us,  and 
cause  the  country  to  look  upon  us  as  a  poor  and  helpless  people. 
They  say,  ‘  Please  give  something  to  help  to  educate  the  poor  black 
people;  but  do,  I  pray,  pay  it  to  me:’  and,  if  it  is  a  hundred  dollars, 
it  is  reduced  to  about  a  hundred  cents  when  it  gets  to  the  ‘  poor  black 
people.’  We  do  not  want,  we  will  not  have,  these  second-rate  men 
begging  for  us.  We  protest  against  it.” 

Smarting  under  the  experience  of  the  Freedman’s 
Savings  Bank,  as  one  of  the  guardians  of  “  the  wards  of 
the  nation,”  Mr.  Douglass  said,  44  We  propose  to  cut  loose 
from  all  invidious  class  institutions,  and  to  part  company 
with  all  those  wandering  mendicants  who  have  followed 
us  simply  for  paltry  gain.  We  now  bid  an  affectionate 
farewell  to  all  these  plunderers;  and  in  the  future,  if 
we  need  a  Moses,  we  will  find  him  in  our  own  tribes.” 

These  are  brave  words,  and  sensible  as  plucky.  The 
whole  negro  problem  in  the  South  would  be  solved  by  the 
formula,  “A  fair  field  to  work  in,  and  the  white  man  to 
leave  us  alone.”  We  cannot  recover  in  a  day  the  ground 
lost  by  the  mistaken  theor}-  of  the  war  and  of  reconstruc¬ 
tion ;  but  the  case  is  by  no  means  hopeless,  nor  so  for¬ 
midable  as  some  imagine.  In  a  paper  on  “  The  Question 
of  Races  in  the  United  States,”  read  before  the  Associa¬ 
tion  for  the  Promotion  of  Social  Science  at  its  session  in 
Glasgow,  October,  1874,  I  ventured  to  say,  “If  the  politi¬ 
cal  element  of  the  problem  could  be  withdrawn,  the 
so-called  conflict  of  races  would  be  greatly  modified,  if, 
indeed,  it  would  not  wholly  cease.  The  present  commo¬ 
tion  in  the  South,  though  marked  by  the  formation  of  the 
4  white  man’s  league,’  is  to  be  ascribed  more  to  political 


280  CENTENNIAL  OE  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

misrule  than  to  prejudice  of  race.”  Since  then,  the  expe¬ 
riences  of  the  presidential  election  have  fully  confirmed 
this  opinion.  No  former  slaveholder  had  any  objection  to 
the  negro’s  voting  on  the  ground  that  he  was  a  negro. 
The  negro  who  presented  himself  at  the  polls  for  the 
avowed  purpose  of  voting  the  Democratic  ticket  encoun¬ 
tered  no  prejudice  of  race,  and  needed  no  United-States 
troops  to  protect  him  in  the  exercise  of  his  suffrage.  Had 
the  Southern  States  been  re-organized  upon  the  basis  of 
impartial  suffrage,  —  that  is,  suffrage  upon  local  conditions 
fairly  within  the  reach  of  all,  instead  of  indiscriminate 
universal  suffrage  enforced  from  without,  —  the  native 
whites  of  the  South  would  have  been  divided  into  rival 
parties,  each  bidding  for  the  negro  vote,  and  each  caring 
that  the  negro  should  have  a  vote.  But  the  just-emanci¬ 
pated  slaves,  in  all  their  ignorance  and  incompetence, 
were  thrown  upon  the  South  en  masse  as  voters  and 
rulers.  To  the  whites  of  the  South,  defeated  in  war, 
impoverished,  and  in  some  cases  disfranchised,  these 
black  voters  and  rulers  represented  the  power  that  had 
conquered  them,  and  the  party  that  sought  again  to  con¬ 
quer  them  in  the  field  of  politics.  Here  was  a  chronic 
cause  of  distrust  and  disturbance ;  and  can  any  wonder  at 
what  has  followed?  Careful  and  candid  observers,  such 
as  Mr.  Charles  Nordhoff  and  Mr.  Watson  (of  “The  Lon¬ 
don  Times”),  testify,  that,  wherever  society  is  left  to  its 
normal  conditions,  industry  and  comfort  are  advancing  in 
the  South;  and  that  whites  and  blacks  live  amicabty 
together,  unless  disturbed  by  attempts  from  without 
to  direct  the  political  action  of  the  negroes  as  a  class. 
Through  all  the  excitements  of  the  late  presidential  elec¬ 
tion,  the  South  attested  its  loyalty  to  the  Union,  and  its 
aversion  to  another  civil  war.  There  can  be  little  doubt, 
that,  if  the  South  is  left  to  itself,  the  “  conflict  of  races  ” 
will  gradually  die  out;  that  justice  and  confidence  will 
gain  with  time.  If,  unhappily,  there  should  arise  a  con¬ 
flict  of  arms  between  the  whites  and  blacks  in  anv  State, 
is  there  any  resource  under  our  political  system  but 
either  to  localize  the  conflict,  and  leave  the  parties  to  fight 
it  out,  or,  on  the  ground  of  anarchy,  to  declare  the  State 
dissolved,  and  govern  it  as  a  Territory  by  the  military 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  281 

power  of  the  nation  ?  But  such  an  alternative  is  not 
likely  to  be  presented,  and  is  sure  to  be  averted  by  two 
simple  rules  : 1  — 

1.  Let  the  General  Government  refrain  from  all  further 
legislation  or  interference  on  behalf  of  the  negro  as  such. 
If  riots  arise  that  the  State  authorities  cannot  quell,  the 
National  Government,  duly  invoked,  should  interfere,  to 
preserve  the  public  peace  ;  and  also,  if  necessary,  it  should 
use  the  arm  of  power  to  sustain  the  courts  in  putting 
down  injustice,  outrage,  and  wrong,  by  the  arm  of  the 
law.  But  all  this  without  making  a  point  of  caring  for 
the  negro  in  distinction  from  any  other  man ;  for  the  best 
way  of  caring  for  the  negro  is  to  cease  to  know  him  as  a 
negro,  and  to  treat  him  always  and  only  as  a  man.  Above 
all  should  the  government  refrain  from  legislating  upon 
social  customs,  instincts,  or  prejudices.  A  legal  injustice 
can  be  done  away  by  law ;  a  moral  wrong,  in  the  form  of 
overt  action,  can  be  dealt  with  by  lav/  :  but  a  taste,  a  sen¬ 
timent,  a  feeling,  an  instinct,  a  prejudice,  —  these  pass  the 
bounds  of  all  legislation ;  and  the  attempt  to  rectify  or 
regulate  these  by  law  serves  only  to  irritate  opposition. 
At  these  points  human  nature  has  much  in  common  with 
the  porcupine. 

2.  The  black  race  should  be  taught  that  they  are  to 
depend  upon  themselves.  Having  freedom,  schools,  the 
rights  of  citizens  guaranteed  by  the  law,  and  the  induce¬ 
ment  to  self-culture  presented  by  opportunities  of  political 
action,  they  should  be  made  to  feel  that  their  future  is  in 
their  own  hands ;  that,  if  they  would  rise  to  a  position 
of  respect  and  of  responsibility  as  men,  they  must  show 
themselves  to  be  men.  There  is  no  other  way  for  any 
race.  If  they  cannot  do  this,  they  must  go  under.  If 
they  will  not  do  this,  they  ought  to  go  under.  But  no 
one  who  knows  the  negro  race  in  America  can  doubt,  that 
with  time  upon  their  side,  and  patience  and  justice  toward 
them  on  the  part  of  others,  they  will  rise  to  the  full  meas¬ 
ure  of  their  opportunities,  and,  with  their  capacity  for 
work,  their  docility,  their  kindliness,  their  adaptivity, 
their  mirthfulness,  their  religious  faith,  will  form  as  good 
a  part  as  any  in  the  social  sytsem  of  the  future.  Time, 

1  See  paper,  read  at  Glasgow,  on  the  Question  of  Races. 


282  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


patience,  justice,  will  cause  the  friction  of  races  to  disap¬ 
pear  in  the  working  of  the  American  system  of  harmon¬ 
ized  humanity. 

The  Chinese,  as  yet,  show  little  inclination  to  become 
naturalized  as  American  citizens.  Industrious,  thrifty, 
clannish,  they  use  America  as  a  mine  of  gold  to  be  worked 
for  accumulations  to  be  spent  in  that  Celestial  Empire 
where  gold  still  passes  current.  If  let  alone,  they  are  not 
likely  to  make  war  upon  a  society  that  opens  to  them  so 
many  avenues  to  industry  and  wealth.  If  they  bring 
with  them  vices,  the  vicious  must  be  dealt  with  as  law¬ 
breakers,  not  as  Chinese.  If  they  would  practise  immo¬ 
ralities  in  the  name  of  religion,  I  will  show  presently  how 
we  should  deal  with  these.  But,  as  a  race,  they  seem  to 
exhibit  no  elements  of  danger  that  will  not  be  overcome 
by  education  and  usage. 

So  far  as  there  is  any  race  difficulty  with  the  negroes 
and  the  Chinese,  it  does  not  originate  with  them,  nor  lie 
in  their  race  qualities,  but  is  created  usually  by  the 
whites  ;  and,  leaving  prejudice  out  of  view,  it  has  more  to 
do  with  labor  and  politics  than  with  color  or  nationality. 
For  prejudice  there  is  no  remedy,  save  in  the  growth  of 
Christian  magnanimity  over  unreasoning  instinct.  The 
Jew  is  no  longer  locked  up  at  night  in  his  quarter  in  the 
Christian  capitals  of  Europe,  nor  burnt  for  his  gold  ;  but 
who  will  quite  trust  the  Turk  to  keep  faith  with  his  Chris¬ 
tian  subjects  ?  What  means  the  constant  appendage  to 
London  advertisements  for  servants,  —  “No  Irish  need 
apply  ”  ?  Such  antipathies  come  and  go  with  change  of 
times ;  and  there  is  no  remedy  for  them  in  laws  or  in  phi¬ 
losophy.  But  race  antipathies  are  appealed  to  in  America 
to  create  political  capital  among  the  working-classes. 
Working-men  hate  competition  in  wages  and  skill, 
whether  this  arises  from  their  own  associates  or  from  in¬ 
truding  foreigners.  Trades-unions  attempt  to  monopolize 
labor,  and  to  deter  any  from  working  except  upon  their 
terms.  Each  class  treads  down  that  next  beneath  it. 
Hence,  when  Chinamen  began  to  crowd  into  the  labor- 
market  of  California,  and,  by  living  cheaply  and  working 
skilfully,  to  crowd  upon  the  Germans  and  Irish  already 
there,  these  resented  this  competition  of  labor  by  antipa- 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  283 

tides  of  race ;  and  the  stamp  politician  was  at  hand  to 
catch  “the  working-man’s  vote  ”  by  promising  to  prohibit 
Chinese  immigration.  He  had  been  ready  enough  to  have 
a  small  game  with  Ah  Sin,  and  to  pluck  him  with  a  “  right 
bower;”  but,  finding  that  “bland  and  childlike”  party 
could  cover  him  with  his  sleeve,  he  at  once  rose  to  ex¬ 
plain  :  — 

“  Then  I  looked  up  at  Nye, 

And  he  gazed  upon  me ; 

And  he  rose  with  a  sigh, 

And  said,  ‘  Can  this  be? 

We  are  ruined  by  Chinese  cheap  labor : ' 

And  he  went  for  that  heathen  Chinee.” 

Bret  Harte’s  ridicule  caused  a  sudden  collapse  in  the 
anti-Chinese  fanaticism  of  the  hour.  This,  however,  has 
since  been  revived  with  greater  malignity  and  in  more  for¬ 
midable  proportions.  The  motive  is  given  in  the  fact  that 
more  than  fifty  per  cent  of  the  voters  in  California  are 
of  foreign  birth,  chiefly  Irish  and  German  laborers ;  and 
thus  the  lower  classes  of  European  society  come  into  com¬ 
petition  with  the  lower  classes  of  Asiatic  society  for  the 
means  of  subsistence.  If  the  Chinese  were  voters,  some 
political  party  would  begin  to  use  them  as  an  offset  to  the 
Irish  and  Germans,  who  now  intimidate  politicians  into 
the  policy  of  proscription.  Yet  what  friend  of  free  insti¬ 
tutions  would  recommend  the  admission  of  these  raw 
pagans  to  the  polls  ?  Cheap  labor  is  not  the  sole  condi¬ 
tion  of  even  material  prosperity.  The  sense  of  justice 
will  finally  prevail ;  and,  in  all  cases  where  the  prejudice 
of  race  is  used  for  a  political  game  with  labor,  it  needs 
only  that  law  and  public  sentiment  should  protect  every 
man  in  his  right  to  earn  his  living;  and  the  laws  of  trade 
will  soon  settle  the  status  of  competing  races. 

Quite  different,  however,  and  far  more  serious,  are  the 
difficulties  created  by  a  portion  of  the  German  immigra¬ 
tion  in  the  United  States.  These  bad  representatives  of 
a  good  race  would  use  their  very  training  in  knowledge, 
and  their  newly-acquired  experience  of  freedom,  to  per¬ 
vert  the  nationality  of  the  American  people,  and  overturn 
the  foundations  of  morality  and  order  on  which  their  free¬ 
dom  rests.  For  the  first,  they  demand,  as  a  right  of  their 


284  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

nationality  and  their  numbers,  that  the  German  language 
be  taught  in  the  public  schools,  and  provision  made  for 
teaching  their  own  children  all  knowledge  through  the 
medium  of  the  German  tongue.  If  the  demand  were  on 
the  part  of  American  parents  that  their  children  should 
be  taught  German  as  an  accomplishment  to  the  same  ex¬ 
tent  that  English  and  French  are  taught  in  public  schools 
in  Germany,  this  would  be  merely  a  question  of  expedi¬ 
ency  as  to  the  form  and  extent  of  common-school  training. 
Cut  this  is  a  demand  of  naturalized  foreigners  that  the 
State  shall  assist  them  in  bringing  up  their  children  as 
Germans,  with  all  the  fond  associations  of  nationality  that 
cluster  about  one’s  mother-tongue,  with  the  feeling  that 
Germany  is  their  real  fatherland,  and  America  only  their 
business  factory  ;  in  a  word,  that  the  State  shall  make  pro¬ 
vision  for  perpetuating  a  distinct  German  nationality  with¬ 
in  the  American  Republic.  The  demand  is  presumptuous, 
disloyal,  suicidal,  such  as  no  State  could  admit  for  a  mo¬ 
ment.  Presumptuous ;  for  what  is  Germany  now  doing, 
what  must  she  do,  in  the  provinces  of  Posen  and  Elsass, 
if  she  would  there  have  loyal  subjects  in  the  next  genera¬ 
tion?  She  is  compelling  every  child  to  learn  German, 
and  every  official  to  speak  and  write  German.  In  Stras- 
burg  she  has  even  painted  out  the  liquid  French  names  of 
the  streets,  and  substituted  her  own  jaw-breaking  guttu¬ 
rals.  This  is  sound  policy.  If  you  would  build  up  a  na¬ 
tion  loyal  and  true,  you  must  begin  at  the  foundation,  and 
44  out  of  the  mouth  of  babes  and  sucklings  must  ordain 
strength,  because  of  its  enemies,  and  to  still  the  enemy 
and  the  avenger.”  While  the  German  nation  is  thus  com¬ 
pelling  all  its  members  to  be  of  one  speech,  is  it  not  a 
pretty  impertinence  for  Germans  in  the  United  States  to 
demand  that  theirs  shall  be  the  language  of  the  schools  ? 
As  a  specimen  of  this  impertinence,  take  the  following 
resolve  of  a  meeting  of  Germans  at  Cooper  Institute,  New 
York :  — 

“  TI  hereas  the  German  language  is  the  natural  idiom  of  a  large 
portion  of  the  population  of  the  United  States  of  America  and  of 
this  metropolis,  thus  offering  such  additional  practical  advantages  as 
would  best  recommend  that  language  for  adoption  as  a  regular 
branch  of  instruction  in  our  public  schools,  — 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  285 

“  Resolved ,  That  we,  as  citizens  and  tax-payers,  most  solemnly  pro¬ 
test  against  any  measures  looking  to  the  exclusion  or  curtailment  of 
instruction  in  German  in  such  of  our  schools  where  this  study  has 
already  been  established  as  a  regular  branch  of  instruction.” 

Could  there  he  a  greater  peril  to  national  unity  and 
liberty  than  this  scheme  of  fostering  and  perpetuating 
within  the  State  a  brood  of  children  alien  in  tongue,  in 
name,  and  in  moral  allegiance  ?  This  is  disloyal  also.  In 
being  naturalized,  the  foreigner  swears  “  to  renounce  and 
abjure  all  allegiance  and  fidelity  to  every  foreign  prince, 
potentate,  state,  and  sovereignty  whatever,”  and  particu¬ 
larly  to  that  of  which  he  was  born  a  subject.  He  should 
therefore  in  good  faith  identify  himself  with  the  interests 
of  his  adopted  country  as  his  own.  As  a  man  of  honor, 
he  cannot  take  this  oath  with  mental  reservations,  nor  hold 
a  divided  allegiance.  In  the  event  of  war  with  Germany, 
non-naturalized  Germans  residing  in  the  United  States 
should  be  protected  in  person  and  property  while  remain¬ 
ing  neutral ;  but  the  naturalized  German  must  fight  for 
America,  or  quit.  No  other  rule  is  admissible.  Now,  the 
children  of  the  naturalized  citizen  are  native-born  Ameri¬ 
cans  ;  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  father  to  train  them  up 
in  allegiance  to  American  institutions.  This  used  to  be 
done  when  Germany  was  a  country  to  run  away  from,  and 
America  a  country  for  a  refuge  and  a  home  ;  but,  now  that 
Germany  is  a  very  good  country  to  come  back  to  with  the 
spoils  of  American  trade,  there  is  a  class  of  naturalized 
Germans  who  would  bring  up  their  children  with  Ger¬ 
many  in  view  as  their  home,  using  their  American  citi¬ 
zenship  only  as  a  protection  against  military  service,  —  a 
speculation  in  disloyalty  that  both  nations  should  frown 
upon. 

Further:  the  policy  of  using  the  public  schools  for 
training  the  children  of  foreigners  to  perpetuate  a  foreign 
speech  as  a  symbol  and  bond  of  foreign  nationality  would 
be  suicidal.  If  done  for  the  Germans,  this  must  be  done 
by  and  by  for  the  Chinese;  for  the  Mexicans  who  may  join 
us  ;  for  the  Icelanders,  if  they  shall  emigrate  to  their  newly- 
found  paradise  of  Alaska :  in  short,  Americans  must  cease 
to  be  an  harmonious,  unified  people,  and  degenerate  into 


286  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


such  a  rabble  of  quarrelling  tongues  ancl  nationalities  as 
one  finds  in  Turkey.1 

Not  content  with  thus  attempting  to  pervert  our  nation¬ 
ality,  there  are  radical  and  fanatical  Germans  who  seek 
to  overturn  the  very  foundations  upon  which  our  freedom 
rests.  They  make  war  upon  the  Sunday  observances,  the 
religious  faith,  the  moral  usages,  of  the  people,  and  aim  at 
a  libertinism  of  thought  and  action,  in  these  particulars, 
worthy  of  the  days  of  the  French  Revolution.  The  hon¬ 
ored  professors  and  pastors  who  went  over  from  Germany 
to  the  Evangelical  Alliance  in  New  York  brought  back 
with  one  accord  the  lament,  that,  while  the  entire  Ameri¬ 
can  press  of  the  city  reported  the  conference  with  favor 
or  respect,  there  were  German  newspapers  that  sneered  at 
the  body,  and  blasphemed  its  work;  and  that  a  class  of 
Germans  was  foremost  in  demoralizing  the  nation  by  out¬ 
raging  its  religious  sentiment  and  observances.  This  was 
the  testimony  of  German  witnesses.2 

On  this  point  I  must  speak  plainly,  perhaps  strongly ; 
but  I  am  sure  I  shall  be  sustained  by  high-minded,  sober- 
minded  Germans  both  in  Germany  and  in  America.  You 
may  not  like  some  of  our  customs  :  we  do  not  like  some 
of  yours.  You  think  you  could  improve  our  civilization  : 
we  return  the  compliment  most  heartily,  and  should  be 
glad  to  improve  yours.  But  you  do  not  wish  an  American¬ 
ized  Germany ;  neither  do  we  wish  a  Germanized  America. 
When  we  point  you,  for  instance,  to  our  free  church  and 
free  powers,  you  answer,  u  This  may  do  very  well  for  you ; 
but  we  are  a  very  different  people,  and  our  development 
must  proceed  from  our  historical  back-ground.”  Very 

1  The  Board  of  Education  in  Detroit  lias  put  this  point  very  forcibly:  — 

“  As  a  nation,  we  should  not.  for  our  own  preservation,  teach  any  language  but  the 
English.  To  do  otherwise  would  be  to  establish  and  encourage  communities,  which 
would  be  no  more  nor  less  than  colonial  dependencies  of  foreign  countries ;  which 
every  sagacious  man  must  see  would  be  detrimental  to  our  best  national  interests.  If 
we  do  it  for  one  nationality  because  of  the  numbers,  wealth,  or  influence,  then  we  must 
do  the  same  for  others,  no  difference  what  their  origin  may  be.  If  the  Chinese  or 
Japanese  should  come  over  to  this  country  in  vast  numbers  (a  thing  not  improbable), 
then  it  may  be  just  as  important  for  us  to  teach  or  use  their  respective  languages.  It 
will  at  once  be  conceded  that  such  a  policy  would  be  national  suicide.” 

2  See  Deutsches  Leben  in  Nord-Amerika,  von  H.  Krummaeher;  and  the 
speech  of  Prof.  Dr.  Dorner  before  the  Evangelical  Alliance  of  Berlin.  The 
National  Zeitung  of  Berlin  boasted  that  the  German  press  in  the  United 
[States  had  made  an  energetic  protest  against  closing  the  Centennial  Exhi¬ 
bition  on  Sundays. 


PERILS,  DUTIES.  ETC..  OE  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  287 

true :  and  we,  also,  are  a  different  people ;  and  our  devel¬ 
opment  must  cling  to  its  historical  root,  which  is  morality 
and  religion.  Severed  from  that,  we  perish. 

Now,  there  is  a  higher  issue  at  stake  than  the  inner  de- 
velopment  of  Germany  and  of  the  United  States  ;  namely, 
that  for  which  both  nations  are  worth  developing,  the  in¬ 
fluence  upon  the  future  of  mankind  of  two  great  free  peo¬ 
ples  conserving  under  different  forms  the  essentials,  with¬ 
out  which  no  human  society  can  endure,  —  religion,  law, 
liberty,  order,  culture.  And,  for  this  influence  on  our 
part,  it  is  necessary,  that,  in  respect  of  religious  practices 
and  moral  customs,  America  should  not  be  Germanized. 
No  people  can  be  governed  without  the  sense  of  a  supreme 
authority  vested  somewhere.  Where  the  government 
rests  in  the  collective  will  of  the  people,  the  sense  of 
authority  is  secured  in  the  subjection  of  the  individual 
will  to  conscience,  to  the  feeling  of  moral  obligation;  in 
one  word,  to  duty  and  to  God.  The  Bible,  the  Church, 
the  Sunday,  and  the  social  usages  that  have  grown  out  of 
these,  have  nurtured  in  the  American  people  that  public 
conscience  that  gives  sanctity  to  law,  and,  in  the  end, 
gives  victory  to  right.  Take  away  that  conscience,  demol¬ 
ish  the  institutions  that  nourish  it,  break  down  the  barriers 
that  protect  it,  and  you  leave  government  and  society  to 
the  license  of  individual,  irresponsible  wills.  That  is 
anarchy ;  and  the  road  out  of  anarchy  is  military  despot¬ 
ism.  Hence  the  Germans  in  America  who  are  seeking  to 
free  society  from  all  restraints  of  law,  custom,  religion,  are 
preparing  to  subject  it  to  the  severest  of  all  restraints,  — 
that  of  a  despot  usurping  the  name  of  order.  I  appeal  to 
the  sober  sense  of  Germans,  I  appeal  to  the  instinct  of 
self-preservation  in  Americans,  against  the  fanaticism  that 
would  destroy  the  tried  and  proved  foundations  of  our 
national  freedom,  and  put  in  their  ste^d  the  crude  theo¬ 
ries  of  the  European  democracy  of  1848.  I  repeat  it,  the 
strength  of  a  republic  lies  in  character;  but  there  is  no 
character  without  morality,  and,  for  the  average  man,  no 
morality  without  responsibility  to  a  higher  Power. 

Let  me  not  be  misunderstood.  The  doctrines  and  pur¬ 
poses  imputed  to  the  Native- American  party  I  utterly 
detest.  Never  would  I  consent  to  make  race  or  religion  a 


988  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

Lanier  to  the  privileges  and  honors  of  citizenship  in  the 
American  Union.  What  I  am  here  insisting  upon  has  not 
the  remotest  affinity  with  the  demands  of  Nativism. 
Every  man  has  the  right  to  expatriate  himself.  The  for¬ 
eigner  who  prefers  to  retain  his  nationality,  and  his  alle¬ 
giance  to  his  native  land,  is  entitled  to  the  protection  of 
the  laws  of  the  country  in  which  he  lives,  or  of  treaty 
stipulations  between  that  country  and  his  own,  so  long  as 
he  does  nothing  contrary  to  the  laws;  but  if  he  volunta¬ 
rily  renounces  his  allegiance  to  his  own  country,  and  makes 
himself  a  citizen  of  another,  then  he  is  bound  to  identify 
himself  fully  with  the  country  of  his  adoption,  and  give 
to  this  his  sole  and  unreserved  allegiance.  To  use  his 
vote,  his  office,  the  political  opportunities  of  his  new  citi¬ 
zenship,  to  further  the  interests  of  the  nationality  he  had 
sworn  to  renounce,  would  be  an  act  both  of  perjury  and 
of  treachery.  The  man  who  could  be  guilty  of  this  is 
not  deserving  of  citizenship  in  any  country.  The  point  I 
here  insist  upon  is  as  really  for  the  interest  of  Germany 
as  of  the  United  States,  and  is  indispensable  to  the  honor 
and  respectability  of  Germans  in  the  United  States:  it  is 
simply  that  the  German  is  perfectly  free  to  live  in  the 
United  States  as  a  German,  keeping  his  heart  and  hopes 
in  his  fatherland,  and  refusing  to  be  Americanized.  But 
if  he  chooses  to  become  an  American  citizen,  then,  in 
every  thing  that  concerns  the  State,  he  must  cease  to 
think,  feel,  act,  as  a  German,  and  be  simply  and  wholly 
American. 

In  the  course  of  these  Lectures  I  have  felt  bound  to 
allude  impartially  to  some  of  the  less  pleasing  incidents 
of  German  character  and  life ;  but  the  whole  tone  of  the 
Lectures  testifies  to  my  high  regard  for  the  German  people, 
which,  indeed,  circumstances  have  made  a  matter  of  pub¬ 
lic  record  in  Germany,  England,  and  the  United  States. 
Intelligent  and  candid  Germans  will  see  that  I  am  none 
the  less  zealous  for  the  good  name  of  Germany  in  this 
view  of  citizenship.  Let  Germans  come  to  America  by 
the  thousands ;  let  them-  stay  as  Germans  if  they  will, 
keeping  their  language  and  customs,  but  subject  to  the 
laws :  but,  if  they  would  be  naturalized,  they  must  be 
American,  and  nothing  else,  never  planning  or  acting  as 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  289 


Germans  in  public  affairs,  nor  seeking  to  pervert  tlie 
nation  from  its  good  old  ways.1 

As  to  those  who  would  use  their  American  citizenship 
to  cover  a  fraud  upon  both  countries,  I  would  say  to  them, 
as  a  shopkeeper  in  Berlin  said  to  an  Englishman  who  used 
his  shop  as  a  lounging-place,  without  buying,  “I  say, 
next  time  you  comes  inside,  petter  you  stays  outside,”  — 
“Next  time  you  emigrates,  petter  you  stays  at  home  !” 

Here  opens  before  us  the  wider  question  of  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  a  religious  conflict  in  the  United  States,  —  a  con¬ 
flict  springing,  from  one  side,  out  of  the  attempt  to  practise 
immoralities  in  the  name  of  religion,  and,  from  the  other, 
the  attempt,  in  the  name  of  conscience,  to  subjugate  civil 
government  to  ecclesiastical  control.  In  dealing  with  the 
social  and  political  questions  raised  by  Mormonism,  Free- 
Lovism,  and  Ultramontanism,  we  must  take  our  stand  upon 
the  absolute  freedom  of  religion  and  the  absolute  inviola¬ 
bility  of  conscience.  These  principles  we  ourselves  would 
never  part  with  ;  but  they  are  not  worth  holding  for  our¬ 
selves,  unless  we  are  equally  ready  to  maintain  them  for 
all  others.  Religious  freedom  for  ourselves,  as  against 
others,  is  not  a  principle,  but  a  pretence  and  a  presump¬ 
tion.  Freedom  of  conscience  for  ourselves,  as  against 
others,  is  not  virtue  nor  faith,  but  bigotry  and  proscrip¬ 
tion.  Never,  under  whatever  provocation  of  danger  or 
fear,  never  let  the  United  States  swerve  one  iota  from  the 
broad  principle  they  were  the  first  among  nations  to  main¬ 
tain, —  that  “all  men  are  equally  entitled  to  the  free  exer¬ 
cise  of  religion.” 2 

1  I  have  a  great  regard  for  Mr.  Carl  Schurz.  Now,  it  was  made  a  point 
in  the  late  presidential  election,  that  Mr.  Schurz  could  influence  the  Ger¬ 
man  vote;  that  tlfe  German  vote  would  be  so  and  so.  But  what  have  avg 
to  do  with  a  German  \rote  ?  Is  the  naturalized  citizen  a  German,  or  an 
American  ?  If  he  purposes  to  \rote  as  a  German,  he  should  not  be  suffered 
to  vote  at  all.  The  United-States  consul  at  Frankfort  A'ery  properly 
refused  to  recei\re  from  Germans  an  address  reflecting  upon  their  own 
government.  Hereupon  the  Germans  in  the  United  States  Avent  into  a 
paroxysm  of  indignation.  But  Avhat  business  Avas  this  of  theirs  ?  What 
have  German  voters  in  the  United  States  to  do  Avitli  politics  in  Germany? 

2  The  separation  of  Church  and  State,  and  the  absolute  freedom  of  reli¬ 
gion,  distinguish  the  United  States  from  even  the  most  advanced  nations 
of  Europe,  "in  England,  the  spirit  of  toleration  gives  a  large  degree  of  reli¬ 
gious  freedom;  but  the  State  church  remains  to  overshadow  the  dissenting 
sects.  In  Prussia,  the  equality  of  confessions  (that  is,  of  the  Catholic  and 
Protestant  communions)  has  been  long  maintained;  and,  of  late,  a  larger 
liberty  of  dissent  from  the  privileged  churches  has  been  allowed  by  law. 


290  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

But  we  cannot  allow  religion  to  be  a  cover  for  vice, 
conscience  a  pretext  for  conspiracy.  Beligion  and  con¬ 
science  as  ruling  within  the  soul  o.f  man  are  one  thing: 
religion  and  conscience  as  acting  in  society  are  quite 
another  thing.  Many  questions  and  actions  that  are 
assumed  to  lie  within  the  domain  of  religion  and  con¬ 
science  lie  equally  within  the  domain  of  civil  society ; 
and  society  has  a  right  to  decide  these  for  itself,  in  view 
of  its  own  security,  peace,  and  welfare,  without  asking 
counsel  of  men’s  faith,  or  taking  note  of  their  consciences. 
Nay,  in  such  matters,  society  is  bound  to  have  a  conscience 
of  its  own ;  and  that  moral  person  called  the  State  must 
ascertain  and  obey  the  law  of  right,  even  against  the  so- 
called  dicta  of  religion. 

The  Mormon  makes  polygamy  a  part  of  his  religion: 
the  Christian  State  makes  polygamy  a  crime. .  Is  it,  then, 
a  violation  of  religious  freedom,  or  of  the  rights  of  con¬ 
science,  if  the  State  sends  a  Mormon  to  the  penitentiary 
for  bigamy  ?  By  what  right  does  the  State  interfere  in  a 
social  relation  which  is  set  up  in  the  name  of  an  express 
revelation  from  God?  The  answer  is  plain. 

The  family,  in  some  form,  is  the  necessary  unit  of  civil 
society.  A  community  organized  of  individuals  as  sepa¬ 
rate  units  would  be  an  army,  not  a  civil  society,  nor  prop¬ 
erly  a  State.  By  the  law  of  nature,  no  new  individual 
can  be  produced"  as  a  member  of  society  save  through 
wedlock,  —  at  least  in  its  lowest  form  of  pairing  or  coition ; 
and,  since  civil  society  has  a  vital  interest  in  the  produc¬ 
tion  of  its  future  constituents,  it  has  a  right  to  concern 

But,  in  the  United  States,  religion  stands  on  the  basis  of  absolute  freedom. 
One  of  the  earliest  champions  of  religious  liberty  was  Roger  Williams.  Dr. 
J.  Hammond  Trumbull  of  Hartford  has  lately  discovered  a  tract  of  Wil¬ 
liams’s,  published  in  London  in  1G52,  in  which  he  contends  for  ‘‘soul-free¬ 
dom  as  of  mighty  consequence  to  thi3  nation.” 

The  four  proposals  in  support  of  which  it  was  written  are,  in  substance, 
for  liberty  of  preaching  without  license  from  magistrates,  for  leaving  to 
God  the  punishment  of  false  teachers  and  heretics,  for  the  denial  of  juris¬ 
diction  in  spirituals  to  the  civil  power,  and  for  permission  to  the  Jews  to 
live  freely  and  peaceably  in  England.  The  argument  is  clearly  and  forci¬ 
bly  presented,  and  in  literary  merit  the  tract  is  unsurpassed  by  any  work 
of  its  author.  There  was  no  subject  on  which  Roger  Williams  so  well 
loved  to  speak,  or  could  so  well,  as  on  “soul-freedom.”  “Oh  that  it 
would  please  the  Father  of  spirits,”  he  says,  “to  affect  the  heart  of  the 
Parliament  with  such  a  merciful  sense  of  the  soul-bars  and  yokes  which 
our  fathers  have  laid  upon  the  neck  of  this  nation,  and  at  last  to  proclaim 
a  true  and  absolute  soul-freedom  to  all  the  people  of  tlio  land  impartially !  ” 


PEEILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTUBY.  291 

itself  with  the  modes,  conditions,  and  antecedents  of  that 
production,  —  in  other  words,  with  the  family,  which  is  at 
once  the  germ  and  the  unitary  form  of  its  own  life.  This 
necessary  supervision  of  the  constituents  of  its  own  con¬ 
tinuous  being,  modern  society  secures  by  demanding  in 
the  parental  relation  certainty  and  publicity,  in  order  that 
responsibility  may  be  fixed  for  the  production  of  offspring, 
and  for  their  training  and  support.  At  this  primal  source 
of  its  own  life,  the  parental  function,  society  must  defend 
itself  against  such  license,  abuse,  or  irresponsibility,  as 
might  entail  disorder,  corruption,  and  even  disorganiza¬ 
tion,  upon  the  civil  community  or  state.  This  obvious 
rule  of  self-protection  in  civil  society  empowers  it  to  deal 
with  any  immorality  that  may  be  set  up  under  the  shield 
of  religion. 

The  danger  of  ultramontane  aggression  we  share  with 
all  Christian  peoples,  since  the  Vatican  has  committed 
itself  to  open  warfare  upon  modern  society.  We  cannot 
look  to  any  European  nation  for  a  satisfactory  solution  of 
this  conflict.  Each  nation  must  meet  it  in  its  own  way. 

t/ 

The  German  method  cannot  be  ours ;  but  assuredly  a  re¬ 
public  possesses  every  right  of  self-protection  that  belongs 
to  any  government.  That  is  no  government  which  cannot 
defend  itself  and  society  against  all  who  conspire  for  its 
overthrow.  The  Vatican  Council  has  organized  the  Rom¬ 
ish  hierarchy  into  a  conspiracy  against  the  freedom  and 
the  sovereignty  of  civil  society.  In  the  United  States  we 
have  nothing  to  apprehend  from  the  spread  of  Roman 
Catholicism  as  a  faith,  nor  from  the  increase  of  the  Roman- 
Catholic  Church.  As  a  faith,  as  a  church,  let  Romanism 
spread  and  grow  as  it  may.  It  shall  be  defended  in  every 
right  of  worship,  of  conscience,  of  propagandism  :  and  it 
must  be  defended  in  these,  or  our  religious  liberty  is  gone. 
If  it  has  errors,  let  truth  dispute  them  ;  if  it  has  supersti¬ 
tions,  let  light  scatter  them.  Against  these,  freedom  is 
our  defence.  The  century  shows  us  that  Romanism  has 
not  gained  relatively  in  its  hold  upon  the  American  peo¬ 
ple.  The  prophecy  so  often  heard  in  Europe,  that  we  shall 
be  swallowed  up  by  Catholicism,  is  but  another  illustration 
how  the  sea  breeds  monsters  to  those  who  know  it  only  by 
the  story  of  Sindbad  the  sailor.  There  is  always  a  sea- 


CENTENNIAL  OE  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


serpent  to  be  seen  by  those  who  very  much  wish  to  see 
one,  and  keep  a  constant  lookout  through  colored  glasses. 
As  compared  with  itself,  the  Roman-Catholic  Church  has 
increased  sensibly  and  largely  in  the  last  two  decades; 
but  the  ratio  of  its  increase  to  other  religious  bodies  and 
to  the  population  is  by  no  means  so  great.  Here  are  the 
figures  :  — 

O 


Parishes,  It.  C., 

“  All  others, 
Sittings,  It.  C., 

“  All  others, 
Church  Property,  It. 
“  All  others, 


1850. 

1.222. 

3g’s39. 
607,863. 
13,566,952. 
C.,  $9,256,758. 
$78,072,013. 


1870. 

4,127. 

68,332. 

1,990,514. 

19,674.548. 

$60,985,566. 

$293,498,015. 


In  percentage,  the  gain  of  the  Roman-Catholic  body 
upon  itself  runs  higher  than  the  gain  of  other  bodies  upon 
themselves ;  but  percentage  is  of  course  higher  where  the 
figures  are  low.  As  to  numbers,  the  increase  of  the  Ro¬ 
man  Catholics  runs  parallel  with  immigration,  which  has 
now  reached  its  maximum;  and  as  to  property,  theirs  is 
largely  in  great  cities,  where  property  reached  fanciful 
prices  during  the  war.  A  map  given  in  connection  with 
the  last  census  shows  how  narrow  is  the  belt  of  Roman- 
Catholic  influence  over  the  whole  population  above  ten 
years  of  age.  As  a  church,  the  Roman-Catholic  is  not 
gaining  upon  the  body  of  the  American  people  ;  and,  if 
it  were,  let  it  do  so  by  all  lawful  means.  America  wants 
no  anti-Popery  crusade,  no  Protestant  war-cry,  above  .  all, 
no  secret  organization,  to  counteract  the  Jesuits  by  imitat¬ 
ing  their  odious  practice  of  mining  in  the  dark.  Light,  air, 
an  open  field,  fair  play,  —  this  is  all  that  should  be  asked 
or  granted  in  a  contest  of  faiths  or  religions.  If  Prot¬ 
estants  should  seek  for  more,  they  would,  be  enemies  of 
religious  liberty.  But  on  the  political  side  the  Romish 
hierarchy  require  to  be  watched,  and  summarily  checked 
in  any  attempt  to  pervert  the  government  of  the  country, 
or  any  of  its  institutions,  to  ecclesiastical  control.  The 
decrees  of  the  Vatican  Council,  and  especially  the  defini¬ 
tion  of  Papal  infallibility  thenceforth  made  obligatory  as 
an  article  of  faith,  have  clothed  the  Pope  with  a  power 
more  absolute  than  any  of  his  predecessors  ever  had  within 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  293 

the  church,  and  given  him  an  enginery  more  potent  than 
the  armies  and  allies  of  his  predecessors  against  the  move¬ 
ments  of  free  society.  Vaticanism  has  practically  Jesuit- 
ized  the  entire  Romish .  hierarchy  by  subjecting  its  every 
member  to  the  personal  will  of  the  Rope,  beyond  interven¬ 
tion  of  prince  or  council.  That  hierarchy  is  now  a  stand¬ 
ing  army  always  under  drill  and  mobilized,  and  doing,  in 
time  of  peace,  that  which  modern  civilization  has  pro¬ 
nounced  nefarious  in  time  of  war.  Such  a  body  may 
become  dangerous  to  liberty  in  the  United  States  by 
directing  voters  in  its  own  interest,  and  by  bargaining  with 
politicians  for  concessions  to  ecclesiastical  control  in  civil 
affairs.  Just  now  it  is  making  a  strong-  effort  to  win  over 
the  freedmen  of  the  South.  There  is  that  in  the  pomps 
and  ceremonies  of  the  Roman-Catholic  Church  which 
appeals  to  the  negro’s  fondness  for  display,  and  there  is 
that  in  its  mysteries  which  appeals  to  the  superstitious 
element  in  his  nature.  Moreover,  the  practical  equality 
that  this  church  admits  among  worshippers,  veiling  its 
despotism  over  conscience  through  the  confessional,  may 
lure  the  ignorant  freedman  with  the  fancy  that  he  is  pro¬ 
tecting  his  own  liberties  by  voting  for  the  aggrandizement 
of  the  church.  It  would  be  a  new  danger  to  liberty  if 
the  Romish  hierarchy  should  find  in  the  negro  population 
of  the  South  a  constituency  as  pliant  as  the  Irish  immi¬ 
gration  in  the  North  and  West. 

This  danger  is  to  be  met,  first,  by  education,  and  espe¬ 
cially  by  a  voluntary  religious  education  that  shall  ac¬ 
quaint  the  freedman  with  the  bearing  of  Vaticanism  upon 
his  liberty  of  conscience  and  of  thought,  and  at  the  same 
time  shall  satisfy  the  religious  sensibilities  and  affections 
of  his  nature ;  and,  next,  it  must  be  met  by  such  a  prac¬ 
tical  exhibition  of  justice  and  equality  on  the  part  of  other 
confessions  as  shall  assure  him  that  he  has  no  need  to  look 
to  Rome  for  recognition  as  a  man.  It  would  be  a  lasting 
shame  to  the  religious  bodies  that  have  had  the  negro, 
when  a  slave,  in  their  fellowship,  if,  by  any  lack  of  sympa¬ 
thy  with  his  elevation  as  a  freedman,  they  should  leave 
him  to  become  the  prey  of  priestcraft. 

But  the  more  pressing  danger  from  the  Roman  hie¬ 
rarchy  is  through  its  alliance  with  political  demagogues, 


294  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

who,  as  a  consideration  for  the  political  support  of  their 
church,  will  concede  to  this  privileges  contrary  to.  the 
Constitution,  and  perilous  to  freedom.1  In  many  cities, 
and  in  some  States,  this  hierarchy,  with  its  unquestioning 
adherents,  holds  the  balance  of  political  power.  It  is  com¬ 
pact,  organized,  unified,  persistent,  and  always  ready  for 
action ;  and  such  a  body,  controlling  votes,  can  make 
terms  with  politicians,  unless  public  sentiment  shall  warn 
these  that  they  are  watched,  and  shall  get  their  due. 

That  the  American  people  will  maintain  their  liberty 
and  union  at  whatever  cost  of  treasure  and  blood,  they 
have  fully  shown  in  the  war  of  Independence  and  the 
war  for  the  Constitution  ;  and  not  only  is  the  patriotism  of 
the  past  secure,  but  it  secures  the  future  also.  I  am  sure 
my  own  feeling  is  the  feeling  of  all  Americans  who  have 
had  like  experience,  —  that  which  our  grandsires  fought 
for  a  hundred  years  ago,  that  which  our  fathers  fought  for 
sixty  years  ago,  that  which  we  and  our  sons  fought  for 
fifteen  years  ago,  we  may  trust  our  childrens’  children 
to  defend.  We  need  not  fear  to  leave  to  posterity  the 
country  that  three  generations  have  taught  them  to  hal¬ 
low  with  blood.  Such  blood  does  not  run  out.  No  doubt 
the  American  people  will  rise  up  against  any  usurpation 
of  their  liberties  and  rights.  But,  just  because  they  are 
ready  to  fight  against  any  real  open  enemy,  they  are  too 
apt  to  let  alone  an  insidious  and  encroaching  enemy 
until  he  has  gained  some  formidable  vantage.  Their  mag¬ 
nanimous  confidence  in  liberty  and  light,  their  forbearance 
toward  all  forms  of  error  and  folly,  make  them  unsuspect¬ 
ing  and  incredulous  as  to  enemies  working  in  the  dark. 
Thus  it  was  that  the  treason  plotted  in  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States,  where  it  might  have  been  throttled, 
was  hardly  credited  until  the  cannon  belched  it  forth  at 
Sumter. 

Now,  after  this  warning,  we  shall  be  inexcusable  if  we 

1  For  instance,  in  the  contest  in  Ohio,  in  1875,  over  the  perversion  of  the 
common  schools  to  sectarian  ends,  a  Catholic  journal  of  Cincinnati  said, 
“  The  thousands  of  Catholics  in  this  city  exercising  their  rights  of  suffrage 
have  a  very  strong  claim  upon  a  political  party,  which  it  will  not  be  safe 
for  political  leaders,  or  aspirants  to  political  office,  to  ignore  or  despise.” 
But  the  American  people  are  now  awake  to  the  danger  of  priestly  inter¬ 
ference  in  public  education,  and,  by  strong  constitutional  prohibitions,  are 
defending  the  xmblic  schools  against  sectarian  control.  • 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  295 

leave  to  our  successors  the  risks  of  a  war  against  the  usur¬ 
pations  of  the  Vatican,  when  we  can  forestall  those  usurpa¬ 
tions  by  timely  and  energetic  measures  of  our  own.  That 
which  makes  Ultramontane  propagandists  a  real  danger  to 
the  State  is  the  doctrine  that  the  Pope  may  order  their 
consciences,  and  of  course  their  actions,  upon  questions  of 
obedience  to  the  civil  law ;  and  hence  a  power  is  melded 
from  Rome  that  may  at  any  time  unhinge  the  allegiance  of 
its  subjects  to  the  State  of  which  they  are  citizens.  The 
remedy  for  this  mischief  is,  that  the  citizen  shall  be  re¬ 
quired  to  make  his  choice  between  an  undivided  allegiance 
to  the  State,  as  having  a  complete  and  undivided  sover¬ 
eignty,  or  disfranchisement  or  expatriation.  The  first  con¬ 
stitution  of  the  State  of  New  York  contained  a  provision, 
that  foreigners  seeking  to  be  naturalized  must  u  take  an 
oath  of  allegiance  to  the  State,  and  abjure  all  allegiance  and 
subjection  to  all  and  every  foreign  king,  prince,  potentate, 
and  state,  in  all  matters  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  civil.” 
That  provision  stood  for  fort}7-  years,  and  ought  to  stand 
to-day  in  every  constitution  of  the  Union. 

It  was  in  the  spirit  of  this  article  that  the  Protestant- 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  absolved  itself 
from  the  government  and  control  of  the  Church  of  Eng¬ 
land.  In  putting  forth  its  “  Book  of  Common  Prayer  ’  in 
1789,  the  convention  of  that  church  said,  “  When,  in  the 
course  of  Divine  Providence,  these  American  States  be¬ 
came  independent  with  respect  to  civil  government,  their 
ecclesiastical  independence  was  necessarily  included;  and 
hence  the  convention  had  set  out  to  model  the  church 
and  its  forms  “  consistently  with  the  constitution  and  laws 
of  their  country.”  Is  there  a  person  in  the  Episcopal 
Church  of  to-day  who  would  consent  that  the  church  in 
New  York,  for  instance,  should  again  be  brought  under 
the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  London,  as 
it  was  before  the  Revolution  ?  But  the  Roman-Catholic 
Church  is  under  the  supreme  jurisdiction  of  the  Roman 
pontiff, — a  jurisdiction  which  the  Vatican  decrees  have 
now  made  immediate  .and  final,  —  above  all  councils  or  ap¬ 
peals.  The  syllabus  denounces  the  notion  that  “  the  Ro¬ 
man  pontiff  can  and  ought  to  reconcile  himself  to  and  agree 
with  progress,  liberalism,  and  civilization  as  lately  intro- 


296  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

ducecl ;  ”  and  specifically  and  emphatically  condemns  the 
doctrine  that  public  schools  “  should  be  freed  from  all 
ecclesiastical  authority,  government,  and  interference,  and 
subject  only  to  the  civil  and  political  power.”  Suppose, 
now,  a  collision  should  arise  between  the  Roman  hierarchy 
and  the  State  upon  this  question  of  ecclesiastical  interfer¬ 
ence  in  the  schools,  and  the  hierarchy  should  take  the 
ground  that  allegiance  to  their  ecclesiastical  superior  at 
Rome  obliged  them  to  withstand  the  school-system  that 
the  State  has  established  for  its  own  safety  and  the  funda¬ 
mental  well-being  of  society:  could  the  State  allow  that 
plea  of  extra-territorial  allegiance,  compound  its  sover¬ 
eignty  for  a  divided  allegiance,  or  intrust  its  own  adminis¬ 
tration  to  hands  sworn  to  obey  the  mandates  of  a  foreign 
power  ?  Nay,  should  not  the  avowal  of  such  allegiance  be 
made  a  disqualification  for  the  rights  of  citizenship  ? 

The  plea  that  the  matters  in  question  are  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal,  and  the  allegiance  rendered  is  an  act  of  conscience, 
has  no  pertinence  in  such  a  case.  Any  question  can  be 
made  “  ecclesiastical ;  ”  and  obedience  to  the  State  is,  or 
ought  to  be,  a  matter  of  “  conscience.”  The  ultramon- 
tanes  are  fond  of  quoting  the  saying  of  Christ,  “  Render 
unto  Coesar  the  things  which  are  Caesar's,  and  unto  God 
the  things  that  are  God’s.”  They  profess  allegiance  to 
the  State  “  within  its  sphere,”  but  claim  the  right  to  limit 
that  sphere  by  their  higher  allegiance  to  the  church, 
which  in  the  person  of  its  head,  the  now  infallible  Pope, 
is  above  the  civil  power,  and  can  define  its  bounds.  But 
this  admeasurement  of  claims  between  State  and  Church, 
or  the  civil  and  the  ecclesiastical  powers,  was  not  in  the 
contemplation  of  Christ,  and  is  in  no  way  implied  in  his 
memorable  saying.  There  stood  before  him  two  parties, 
the  Pharisees  and  the  Herodians,  which,  however  hostile 
to  each  other  in  politics  and  in  dogma,  could  agree  in  the 
attempt  to  entangle  Jesus  in  his  talk.  Though  the  Jews 
were  held  in  vassalage  by  the  Romans,  the  Pharisees 
clung  to  the  proud  faith  in  the  Jewish  theocracy  as  above 
all  the  governments  of  the  earth.  In  their  view,  for  a  Jew 
voluntarily  to  acknowledge  a  foreign  government,  and  pay 
tribute  to  a  pagan  prince,  was  treason  against  Jehovah. 
Though  the  royal  house  of  David  had  long  ceased  to  reign, 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  297 

-and  the  Idumaean  Herod  had  held  the  throne  by  favor  of 
the  Roman  emperor,  the  theocracy  was  still  visibly  repre¬ 
sented  in  the  temple  and  the  hierarchy.  The  high  priest 
stood  as  the  head  of  the  nation  and  the  vicegerent  of 
God.  The  Pharisees  would  pay  their  temple  dues  only 
in  the  old  Jewish  shekel,  and  regarded  the  payment  of 
the  poll-tax  to  the  agents  of  the  Roman  procurator  as  an 
act  of  impiety.  In  the  time  of  Herod,  however,  there  had 
sprung  up  among  the  Jews  a  party  who  favored  some  sort 
of  compromise  with  the  Roman  civil  power  as  a  means  of 
preserving  their  own  nationality.  Plerod  the  Great  was 
dead,  and  Judaea  was  ruled  directly  by  a  governor  sent 
from  Rome.  But  Herod  Antipas  was  tetrarch  of  Galilee  ; 
and,  while  he  courted  the  popular  favor  of  the  Jews,  he 
sought  by  flattery  and  bribes  to  obtain  from  Caesar  the 
title  of  king.  Those  who  favored  this  semi-Roman  policy 
were  known  as  Herodians. 

These  two  parties  set  out  to  catch  Jesus  by  asking,  u  Is 
it  lawful  to  give  tribute  unto  Caesar,  or  not?  ”  Should  he 
say  no,  the  Herodians  would  denounce  him  to  the  govern¬ 
ment  as  teaching  sedition;  should  he  say  yes,  the  Phari¬ 
sees  would  denounce  him  to  the  people  as  an  advocate  of 
their  oppressors.  He  called  for  a  piece  of  money.  They 
had  to  confess  that  in  every-day  life  they  were  using 
money  stamped  with  the  “  image  and  superscription  of 
Caesar.”  Then  Christ  said  to  them,  “  Pay  that  which  is 
Caesar’s  to  Caesar,  and  that  which  is  God’s  to  God ;  ”  and 
both  parties  were  silenced  and  amazed. 

Just  so  the  ultramontanes  set  up  their  high  priest  at 
Rome  as  the  incarnation  of  the  theocracy,  the  head  of 
the  Christian  commonwealth,  the  vicegerent  of  God.  He 
cannot  be  a  subject,  but  gives  law  to  princes  and  govern¬ 
ments.  To  recognize  any  power  as  superior  to  him  is 
treason  against  the  church,  and  so  against  God.  Never¬ 
theless,  the  Romish  hierarchy  do  not  object  to  having  their 
coffers  filled  with  coin  stamped  with  the  image  and  super¬ 
scription  of  the  princes  of  this  world.  Thus  far  the  anal¬ 
ogy  is  exact :  the  modem  ultramontane  and  the  Pharisee 
of  old  are  one. 

Now,  from  the  Pharisaic  point  of  view,  what  should 
Jiave  been  the  antithesis  of  Christ  ?  “  Render  unto  Caesar 


298  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

the  tilings  that  are  Caesar’s,  and  unto  the  high  priest  the 
things  that  are  the  high  priest’s.”  Against  the  visible 
temporal  power  he  should  have  set  off  the  visible  hierar¬ 
chy  as  representing  the  theocracy.  He  did  no  such  thing. 
The  thought  of  balancing  a  spiritual  power  on  earth 
against  the  civil  power  was  not  present  to  his  mind,  and 
finds  no  cover  in  his  words.  He  simply  said,  “  Render 
your  visible,  manifest  duty  of  tribute  and  allegiance  to 
the  civil  government :  but  the  spiritual  life  is  of  the  inner 
nature  ;  this  is  not  an  affair  of  laws  and  taxes.  With  full 
heart  render  to  God  all  that  is  his.”  There  is  not  a  shadow 
of  pretext  here  for  setting  up  an  ecclesiastical  authority 
against  the  State.  The  fundamental  note  in  Christ’s 
teaching  was,  u  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world  ;  ”  “  The 
kingdom  of  God  is  within  you.”  Hence  he  did  not  set 
up  one  class  of  institutions  to  make  war  upon  another, 
nor  to  divide  with  others  the  homage  and  service  of  man¬ 
kind.  He  established  an  inner  law  of  truth,  light,  and 
love,  that  should  regulate  the  conduct  of  the  whole  life 
toward  God  and  man.  The  Christian,  therefore,  should 
act  conscientiously,  and,  so  to  speak,  religiously,  in  all  that 
he  does.  He  cannot  go  against  his  conscience.  But 
Christ  never  authorized  the  setting  up  of  a  concrete,  or¬ 
ganized  spiritual  power  or  authority  on  earth,  to  be  pitted 
or  paired  against  the  authority  of  civil  government.  Not 
Csesar  and  the  Pope,  not  the  State  and  the  Church,  but 
Csesar  and  God,  was  his  antithesis. 

A  simple  example  will  clear  up  the  confusion  that  is 
raised  by  the  terms  “  conscience,”  “  religious  liberty,”  &c., 
whenever  the  conspiracy  of  Ultramontanism  against  the 
State  is  exposed ;  and  the  example  will  serve  at  the  same 
time  to  settle  certain  points  in  the  labor-question. 

The  proprietor  of  a  shoe-factory  in  Massachusetts  noti¬ 
fied  his  workmen,  that,  in  the  dull  state  of  business,  he 
must  reduce  their  wages.  He  offered  to  open  his  books  to 
their  inspection,  and  satisfy  them  that  he  was  making  no 
profit.  He  was  unwilling  to  discharge  them,  or  to  run  on 
half-time,  and  agreed  to  raise  their  wages  as  soon  as  they 
could  get  more  at  any  like  factory.  The  workmen  con¬ 
sented  to  his  terms,  but,  a  few  days  after,  told  him  they 
were  forbidden  by  the  Crispin  Union  to  work  for  a  re- 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  299 

duction.  They  quit  >vork,  and  he  procured  from  another 
source  a  temporary  supply  of  hands.  By  and  by  his  work¬ 
men  reported  they  had  the  consent  of  the  Union  to  work 
on  his  terms,  and  he  took  them  all  back.  Some  of  the 
substitutes  had  done  a  style  of  work  with  a  better  fin¬ 
ish,  and  the  proprietor  stipulated  for  this  quality.  Again 
the  workmen  came,  and  said  they  were  forbidden  by  the 
Union  to  do  that  style  of  work  at  such  a  price.  He  then 
said,  u  You  have  twice  broken  your  contract  at  the  dicta¬ 
tion  of  an  outside  power :  I  will  now  employ  you  only 
from  day  to  day.”  He  sent  at  once  to  California,  and  pro¬ 
cured  a  body  of  Chinese  workmen,  and  then  discharged 
the  old.  Attempts  were  made  to  burn  the  factory,  to  mob 
the  Chinese  ;  but  the  law  protected  both. 

The  moral  of  this  is  obvious.  Each  workman  was  en¬ 
titled  to  fair  wages,  to  the  best  price  that  his  work  would 
fetch ;  he  had  a  right  to  fix  his  own  terms  ;  he  had  a  right 
to  combine  witli  his  fellow-workmen  for  a  given  rate  of 
wages ;  and  they  all  had  a  right  to  quit  work  if  that  rate 
was  not  given.  They  had  a  right,  also,  to  join  a  Union, 
and  surrender  to  this  the  control  of  their  labor ;  to  gi\  e 
up  making  bargains  for  themselves,  and  agree  to  obey  the 
rules  and  terms  of  a  body  outside  of  themselves,  and  whose 
head  was  in  another  town  a  hundred  miles  away. 

But  what  of  the  proprietor  ?  He  had  a  friendly  interest 
in  the  men  who  had  worked  for  him  for  years,  and  who 
lived  as  neighbors  in  the  same  town.  This  interest  he 
showed  by  his  several  proposals.  He  addressed  himself  to 
their  reason  and  their  sense  of  honor,  and  was  successful. 
So  long  as  he  could  deal  with  them  as  individuals,  or  col¬ 
lectively  as  his  workmen,  he  had  no  trouble  :  he  was  a 
man  dealing  with  men,  and  they  came  to  a  good  under¬ 
standing.  But,  in  committing  themselves  to  the  Union, 
the  workmen  surrendered  their  individual  wills,  and  merged 
their  personality  in  an  outside  corporation.  That  corpo¬ 
ration  the  proprietor  was  not  bound  to  know.  To  him  it 
was  a  foreign  body.  It  had  no  personality;  no  ties  of  ac¬ 
quaintance,  of  neighborhood,  of  sympathy,  of  community 
of  interest :  it  was  a  dictator  that  came  in  between  him  and 
his  men  to  hinder  the  freedom  of  their  choice,  to  take  away 
their  personality,  and  make  it  impossible  for  him  to  deal 


300  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

with  his  work-people  on  the  equal  basis  of  man  with  men. 
They  had  a  right  to  sell  out  their  personality;  but  he  was 
under  no  obligation  to  ratify  the  sale  :  and,  when  their  cor¬ 
poration  sought  to  interfere  in  his  dealing  with  other  per¬ 
sons,  the  law  was  bound  to  put  it  down.  Just  so  every  man 
has  a  right  to  the  free  exercise  of  his  conscience.  The  State 
is  bound  to  see  that  conscience  —  that  is  to  say,  the  facul¬ 
ty  of  moral  judgment,  the  inner  sense  of  right  and  wrong 
—  is  left  absolutely  unhindered  by  law  or  by  force.  Every 
man  has  a  right  to  decide  for  himself  whether  any  law  or 
requirement  of  the  State  is  to  him  right  or  wrong;  has  the 
right  to  protest  against  any  law  or  requirement,  to  refuse 
to  obe}^  it,  and  take  the  penalty.  Any  man  has  a  right  to 
consult  with  others  concerning  any  law  or  requirement  of 
the  State,  and  to  join  others  in  protesting  against  it  with 
a  sort  of  collective  conscience.  The  question,  however,  of 
combining  in  overt  resistance  to  a  law  of  the  State,  lies 
beyond  the  pale  of  individual  conscience,  and  falls  within 
the  category  of  revolution,  which,  I  have  shown  in  the 
Second  Lecture,  has  ethical  principles  of  its  own. 

Again :  any  person  has  a  right  to  submit  the  guidance 
of  his  conscience  to  another  person  or  power  outside  of 
himself ;  to  make  it  a  matter  of  conscience  to  accept  the 
decision  of  an  outward  authority  as  fixing  his  duty  toward 
the  State,  so  that,  on  the  word  of  command  from  such 
authority,  he  shall  refuse  to  obey  the  State,  shall  even  de¬ 
nounce  and  defy  the  State.  All  this  he  has  an  abstract 
right  to  do  ;  but,  from  the  moment  he  does  this,  he  forfeits 
all  claim  on  the  State  to  recognize  and  respect  his  conscience. 
As  the  workman,  in  bringing  in  a  third  power  to  dictate 
to  his  employer, _  merged  his  personality,  so  this  recusant 
citizen  merges  his  conscience  in  a  corporation,  a  powder,  an 
authority,  the  State  cannot  know  nor  deal  with.  As  between 
him  and  the  State,  his  disobedience  has  lost  the  dignity  and 
sanctity  of  conscience :  he  is  no  longer  a  distinct  personality 
to  be  considered  as  to  his  views  and  feelings ;  he  is  on  a 
strike,  at  the  dictation  of  his  managers.  If  then  he  does 
any  thing  to  molest  others  or  to  disturb  the  public  peace,  if 
he  conspires  with  or  for  his  managers  against  the  State,  no 
plea  of  conscience  can  shield  him  from  the  penalty  provided 
for  such  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors.  The  machinery  of 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  301 

conspiracy  and  rebellion  the  State  is  bound  to  break.  There 
can  be  no  fear  of  a  religious  war,  and  no  footing  for  an 
ultramontane  conspiracy,  if  the  State  will  betimes  enforce 
undivided  allegiance  as  the  basis  of  civil  rights.1  But  one 
more  phantom  seems  to  skirt  our  political  horizon,  under 
the  fitful  names  of  political  centralization  and  Csesarism. 
Of  the  strife  between  labor  and  capital  I  make  no  account 
as  a  special  danger  to  American  institutions.  This  is  not 
a  product  of  those  institutions,  but  an  importation  from 
the  Old  World.  It  is  not  in  America,  as  in  Europe,  politi¬ 
cal  in  its  origin,  nor  socialistic  or  communistic  in  its  aims. 
In  America  the  working-man  uses  the  machinery  of  poli¬ 
tics,  and  especially  uses  the  pliant  and  tricky  politician,  to 
gain  his  ends ;  for,  in  the  United  States,  the  working-man 
is  a  voter;  but  he  is  also  a  voter  in  France,  in^  Germany, 
and,  to  a  growing  extent,  in  England.  In  America  he  does 
not,  as  in  Europe,  threaten  the  foundations  of  society :  he 
does  not  seek  to  change  the  form  of  government,  but  to 
use  legislation  more  directly  for  what  he  conceives  to  be 
his  own  advantage.  In  the  United  States  there  are  four 
checks  upon  socialism  or  communism  that  well-nigh  neu¬ 
tralize  its  influence  with  the  masses.  The  first  check  is 
in  the  facility  with  which  any  man  can  change  his  occupa¬ 
tion,  enter  upon  any  thing  for  which  he  is  competent,  and 
so  make  his  way  onward  and  upward ;  and  he  who  has 
taken  his  first  step  upward  drops  liis  levelling  theories  be¬ 
hind  him. 

The  second  check  is  in  the  facility  with  which  one  can 
procure  a  piece  of  land,  or  a  something  that  he  may  call 
his  own ;  and  he  who  has  begun  to  acquire  property  no 
longer  believes  in  the  community  of  goods. 

The  third  check  is  in  experience.  “  A  burnt  child 
dreads  the. fire.”  Now,  the  working-man  has  so  often 
been  used  by  the  politician,  and  cheated  by  Unions, 
that  he  knows  “their  tricks  and  their  manners,”  and  is 
shy  of  new-fangled  theories  for  his  relief.  To-day  he  is 

i  See  Platform  at  end  of  the  Lecture.  . 

For  a  fuller  discussion  of  the  relations  of  the  State  to  religion,  see  my 
Church  and  State  in  the  United  States.  The  laws  recognize  religion  as 
under  their  protection,  and  tacitly  assume  the  Christian  religion  to  be  that 
of  the  people  as  a  whole;  but  they  do  not  know  a  church  as  a  confession, 
a  communion,  or  a  worship,  but  only  as  a  corporation. 


302  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


called  upon  to  “  vote  himself  a  farm ;  ”  to-morrow,  to  vote 
that  a  day  has  hut  eight  hours ;  next  day,  that  the  gov¬ 
ernment  shall  “  move  the  crops,”  or  print  money  for  him 
by  the  bushel.  But  he  has  seen  so  many  of  these  hubbies 
hurst,  that  he  is  chary  of  investments  in  soapsuds.  Even 
the  Grangers  are  finding  out,  that  if  they  combine  to 
raise  wheat  to  an  artificial  price,  and,  in  prospect  of  this 
fancy  price,  raise  more  wheat  than  the  world  can  consume, 
the  world  will  not  buy,  and  they  must  drop  their  price 
below  the  old  average  to  work  the  crop  off  their  hands ; 
and  also  that  railways  will  not  transport  crops,  unless  paid 
for  it ;  and,  if  railroads  do  not  pay  their  owners,  no  more 
will  be  built.  Thus  one  fallacy  after  another  is  set  aside 
by  the  sure  working  of  the  laws  of  trade,  just  as  the  tide 
effaces  castles  and  cities  that  children  draw  upon  the  sand. 
True,  the  element  of  humbug  in  human  nature  is  some¬ 
thing  incalculable  :  and  we  must  make  large  allowance  for 
this  in  our  estimate  of  a  free  State  in  which  men  can  set 
up  their  humbugs  ad  libitum.  It  is  with  political  specula¬ 
tion  in  America  much  as  with  what  is  called  philosophi¬ 
cal  speculation  in  some  other  countries.  Every  new  pro¬ 
fessor  of  the  art  has  a  patent  system  for  a  universe  of  his 
own,  built  of  the  fragments  of  his  predecessors,  or  evolved 
from  the  depths  of  his  inner  consciousness.  Sometimes  he 
amazes  the  crowd  as  he  lifts  himself  in  his  balloon  so  far 
above  their  vision,  till  they  discover  he  is  not  in  the 
clouds,  but  only  in  a  fog ;  .  then  a  healthy  breeze  sweeps 
by,  and  both  fog  and  philosophy  are  gone.  It  is  this 
healthy  breeze  of  common  sense,  springing  from  a  free 
press  and  free  discussion,  that  disperses  popular  illusions 
in  the  United  States  before  they  have  poisoned  the  air 
with  epidemic  disease. 

And  hence  the  fourth  check  upon  false  theories  of  soci¬ 
ety  and  life  in  the  United  States  is  “  the  sober  second 
thought  of  the  people,”  their  average  good  sense.  A 
fisherman  with  whom  I  was  accustomed  to  deal  in  New 
York  used  often  to  argue  with  me,  that  no  man  had  a 
right  to  amass  property  above  his  neighbors,  but  all  were 
entitled  to  an  equal  share,  for  which  government  should 
make  a  paternal  provision.  One  day  I  purposely  said, 
“  This  fish  is  not  fresh.”  —  “  I  assure  you,”  he  replied  with 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  303 

warmth,  “it  is  fresh.  I  was  tip  at  three  o’clock  this  morn¬ 
ing,  and  ahead  of  everybody  else  at  the  fishing-smacks: 
so  I  had  the  best  pick,  and  I  know  there  is  not  another 
such  lot  of  fish  in  New  York.”  —  “Then  certainly  I  shall 
not  buy  of  you ;  for  I  should  make  myself  an  enemy  of 
society.  You  had  no  right  to  get  ahead  of  other  fishmen, 
and  to  have  a  better  lot  at  a  higher  price  than  theirs. 
You  should  at  once  send  them  some  of  yours,  or  govern¬ 
ment  should  compel  you  to  share  your  profits  with  your 
neighbors.”  The  hearty  laugh  with  which  he  said,  “  You 
have  me  there,”  exploded  his  communism ;  and  I  never 
heard  of  it  again.  Depend  upon  it,  all  such  humbugs  in 
the  United  States  will  be  talked  down,  argued  down,  and 
finally  laughed  down. 

There  is  one  spectre  that  of  late  has  swayed  before  us 
like  the  fog-giant  of  the  Alps,  —  Csesarism.  Yet  I  men¬ 
tion  this  only  out  of  respect  to  Mr.  Sumner,  who  coined 
the  term,  and  rang  changes  on  it  to  his  dying-day.  Politi¬ 
cal  centralization  and  imperial  usurpation  are  impossible 
in  the  United  States,  if  the  people  are  simply  true  to  the 
practice  of  local  self-government.  AVe  have  so  many  local 
centres  of  government, — town,  city,  count)q  state,  —  that 
no  man  nor  party  can  rule  the  country  by  orders  from 
Washington,  nor  by  official  machinery  worked  from  AVash- 
ington  as  its  centre.  Congress  has  none  of  the  omnipo¬ 
tence  of  the  British  Parliament  over  local  affairs,  the 
President  none  of  the  power  of  the  central  government  at 
Versailles  over  municipal  and  communal  appointments ; 
and,  outside  the  specific  list  of  United-States  officials, 
there  is  no  way  of  getting  at  these  local  officers  and 
administrations  from  Washington  so  as  to  usurp  the 
appointment  or  control  of  them. 

The  military  organization  of  the  country  gives  no  facili¬ 
ties  for  centralization  or  usurpation..  The  standing  army 
is  too  small  to  overawe  a  single  section  of  the  country,  if 
that  section  is  resolutely  organized  for  resistance  ;  and  it 
cannot  be  increased,  except  by  vote  of  the  people  through 
their  representatives.  The  army  is  not  concentrated  in 
Washington :  the  general  holds  his  office  for  life,  quite 
independent  of  the  President.  No  man  can  perpetuate 
himself  in  office.  He  may  deem  himself  necessary  to  the 


304  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


government;  but  the  people  have  only  to  vote  another 
into  his  place,  and  the  machinery  and  materials  for  usur¬ 
pation  are  utterly  wanting.  Fears  of  Csesarism  and  cen¬ 
tralization  are  phantoms.  One  marvels  that  a  statesman 
should  be  swayed  by  such  morbid  fancies,  and  scare  the 
country  with  such  crude  alarms.1  The  President  can  in¬ 
deed  manipulate  the  civil  service  to  personal  ends  and  to 
the  public  detriment ;  but  this  abuse  is  at  most  short¬ 
lived  in  the  hands  of  any  one  person,  and  the  remedy  lies 
in  establishing  the  civil  service  upon  the  permanent  basis 
of  competence  and  good  behavior. 

A  party  long  in  the  ascendent  may  seek  to  monopolize 
power,  and  to  concentrate  the  whole  administration  of  the 
country  in  the  hands  of  its  own  adherents  ;  but  any  such 
attempt  is  sure  to  provoke  re-action,  and  to  return  with 
interest  upon  the  heads  of  its  contrivers.  Besides,  there  is 
a  sure  and  practical  remedy  for  this  in  a  system  of  cumu¬ 
lative  voting,  by  which  party-lines  shall  be  broken,  and  a 
just  representation  be  secured  to  the  minority  in  every 
election.  Since  the  majority  of  to-day  may  become  the 
minority  of  to-morrow,  it  is  the  interest  of  all  parties  alike 
to  secure  themselves  from  the  tyranny  of  the  majority. 
In  view  of  all  the  evils  now  enumerated,  there  remains  the 
cheering  fact,  that  the  government,  while  fixed  in  princi 
pies,  is  .flexible  and  improvable  in  forms  and  methods. 
Nothing  should  be  despaired  of  that  can  be  improved,  and 
that  contains  within  itself  provision  for  its  own  improve 
ment.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  by  its 
provision  for  amendment,  invites  the  people  to  make  ex¬ 
perience  their  law. 

And  for  this  there  is  need  of  training  for  the  higher 
statesmanship.  The  breed  of  politicians  has  so  degenerat 
ed,  that  the  people  would  have  none  of  them.  The  war 
taught  us  that  true  generalship  lay  in  the  scientific  train- 

1  This  phantom  of  Mr.  Sumner’s  is  offset  by  the  jubilant  announcement 
of  a  member  of  the  British  Parliament  in  1801,  that  “the  great  American 
bubble  had  burst.”  Mr.  Gladstone,  who  rebuked  that  utterance  at  the 
time,  has  publicly  confessed  the  error  of  his  own  opinion — “too  hastily 
and  lightly  formed”  —that  the  Union  should  and  would  be  divided,  and 
his  “graver  error  in  declaring  this  opinion  at  a  time  when  he  held  public 
office  as  a  minister  of  a  friendly  power.”  When  will  statesmen  learn  not 
to  utter  crude  opinions  or  flippant  judgments?  or,  rather,  when  shall 
we  have  men  in  public  life,  who,  being  statesmen,  would  be  incapable  of 
uttering  crudities  and  inanities  ? 


PERILS,  DUTIES,  ETC.,  OF  THE  OPENING  CENTURY.  305 

ing  of  West  Point,  and  our  political  blunders  and  failures 
have  taught  us  to  look  to  scientific  training  for  successful 
statesmen.  Already  the  leading  universities  have  estab¬ 
lished  professorships  of  political  science  with  this  end  in 
view ;  and  in  a  few  years  more  we  shall  have  men  whom 
the  State  more  wants  for  its  service  than  they  want  office 
of  the  State. 

But  the  essence  of  all  improvement,  as  the  ground  of  all 
hope,  lies  in  the  people  themselves.  The  State  has  need 
of  men  ;  for  in  the  republic  only  men  can  make  and  be 
the  State.  And  here  there  is  hope,  in  those  ethical  quali¬ 
ties  of  the  American  people  that  give  to  national  life  the 
natural  and  providential  elements  of  stability.  (1.)  Their 
generosity  of  spirit.  America  has  her'  full  share  of  mean 
and  calculating  men :  yet,  after  large  experience  in  my 
own  country,  I  must  testify  that  the  meanest  men  I  have 
known  in  church  and  in  affairs  were  not  of  native  birth  ; 
and,  after  wide  observation  in  many  lands,  I  do  candidly 
believe  that  my  own  countrymen  have  least  of  the  mer¬ 
cenary  spirit.  Quick  as  they  are  to  make  money,  they 
are  as  quick  to  use  and  give  it  for  worthy  and  noble 
objects.  Eager  as  they  are  to  get  riches,  theirs  is  not  the 
greed  of  gain,  nor  the  lust  of  hoarding.  As  a  rule  in  life, 
money  is  a  means,  not  an  end,  for  enjoyment,  for  im¬ 
provement,  for  beneficence,  not  for  sordid  idolatry.  The 
richest  citizen  of  the  United  States  had  lived  a  blameless 
and  upright  life ;  had  done  somewhat  for  -charities,  litera¬ 
ture,  and  public  improvements :  but,  when  he  died,  the 
entire  press,  reflecting  the  spirit  of  the  people,  mourned 
that  he  had  so  missed  the  aim  of  life  in  not  giving  more 
in  proportion  as  he  had  acquired.  The  Americans  honor 
generosity  of  spirit.  (2.)  Theirs  is  also  a  quick  sense  of 
justice  as  between  themselves  and  toward  others,  —  the 
business  integrity  that  is  above  fraud,  the  social  frankness 
that  is  above  deceit.  (3.)  The  spirit  of  peace  and  good¬ 
will  toward  mankind,  the  sentiment  of  universal  brother¬ 
hood,  marks  their  private  intercourse  and  their  public  acts. 
And  as,  perhaps,  the  spring  of  all  the  rest,  they  have  (4)  a 
profound  susceptibility  to  religious  impressions,  and  sense 
of  religious  obligation.  I  sketch  these  outlines  of  charac¬ 
ter  as  the  ethical  ground  of  stability  in  the  national  life. 


306  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 

But  the  future  of  the  nation  lies  in  the  filling  out  of  such 
a  character  by  every  man  for  himself.  However  dark  and 
threatening  the  evils  of  the  present,  I  adopt  the  heroic 
faith  and  prophetic  hope  of  the  noble  Queen  of  Prussia, 
the  sainted  Luise,  in  the  gloomiest  hour  of  her  land :  “  I 
believe  firmly  in  God  and  in  the  moral  order  of  the  world. 
.  .  .  Assuredly  a  better  time  will  come ;  but  it  can  only 
become  good  in  the  world  through  the  good.  .  .  .  Let  us 
care  only  for  this,  that  we  with  every  day  become  riper 
and  better.”  The  stream  cannot  rise  higher  than  the 
fountain ;  and  seldom  in  political  life  does  it  rise  so  high. 
If  we  would  have  the  republic  worthily  represent  us,  we 
must  remember  that  we  represent  the  republic ;  that  its 
life  and  character  are  our  own.  More  and  more  is  there 
need  of  men  whom  no  office  could  honor,  no  position 
elevate,  and  who,  though  ready  for  any  service  to  their 
country,  feel  that  the  highest  dignity  is  that  oi^the  citizen 
who  clothes  himself  with  all  virtues,  and  so  represents  and 
honors  his  nation  in  his  own  person.  The  republic  is  the 
school  of  manhood.  If  it  does  not  train  men,  lift  up  the 
average  man  above  the  average  level,  and  raise  the  higher 
man  to  the  highest  dignity  and  worth  of  character,  liow 
shall  it  justify  its  claim  to  be  ?  Ah  !  should  Americans  but 
live  up  to  their  opportunity,  and  fill  out  the  ideal  of  man¬ 
hood  under  freedom,  there  would  be  no  longer  care  for 
the  republic  at  home,  nor  criticism  of  the  republic  abroad. 
At  home,  truth,  justice,  honor,  virtue,  generosity,  magna¬ 
nimity,  culture,  would  adorn  every  person,  every  house, 
every  office ;  or  rather  cease  to  adorn  the  individual,  as 
the  common  features  of  the  whole.  Abroad  it  would  be 
said  of  such  a  one,  u  He  is  an  American  :  I  know  it  by  his 
breadth  of  view,  his  liberality  of  opinion,  his  generosity  of 
spirit,  his  courtesy  of  manner,  his  brotherhood  of  feeling ; 
by  his  freedom  from  prejudice,  bigotry,  particularism,  van¬ 
ity  ;  by  his  quiet  self-possession,  and  his  respect  for  others ; 
by  the  gentleness  of  his  bearing  and  his  speech ;  by  his 
taste  for  music  and  art ;  by  his  sympathy  with  truth  and 
freedom ;  by  his  enthusiasm  for  humanity,  and  his  rever¬ 
ent  and  loving  devotion  to  God.”  Let  our  schools  and 
churches  produce  a  generation  of  such  men,  and  especially 
such  women,  and  the  future  of  the  republic  is  sure. 


A  PLATFORM  FOR  THE  NEW  CENTURY. 


307 


A  PLATFORM  FOR  THE  NEW  CENTURY. 

As  a  summary  of  the  recommendations  of  the  preceding  Lecture, 
and  to  give  them  a  practical  shape,  I  here  reprint  an  article  which  I 
furnished  to  “The  Christian  Union”  of  Aug.  18,  1875,  as  a  “Plat¬ 
form  for  our  Second  Century  — 

In  these  days  of  political  uncertainty,  when  parties  are  dissolving, 
and  “  independent  voters  ”  are  floating  about,  seeking  some  new  line 
of  crystallization,  it  seems  open  to  any  one  to  offer  a  platform  of 
public  policy  that  may  serve  at  least  for  a  basis  of  speculation.  The 
platform  which  I  herewith  volunteer  has  several  advantages.  First, 
not  being  framed  as  a  bid  for  office,  nor  to  obtain  the  suffrages  of  any 
party,  it  declares  itself  openly  and  explicitly  upon  the  questions  that 
are  of  real  and  present  interest ;  secondly,  since  no  one  could  hope 
just  now  to  be  elected  to  office  upon  this  basis,  the  acceptance  of  it 
could  not  be  imputed  to  any  other  motives  than  those  of  the  purest 
patriotism ;  thirdly,  ten  years  hence,  no  one  need  look  for  the  votes 
of  intelligent  and  conscientious  Americans  for  any  place  of  jmblic 
trust  who  shall  not  plant  himself  squarely  upon  the  principles  of  this 
platform. 

(1.)  Trade.  —  Trade  of  every  description,  domestic  or  foreign,  com¬ 
mercial,  agricultural,  manufacturing,  carrying,  should  be  entirely  free 
to  follow  its  own  laws,  without  interference  from  government,  whether 
for  hinderance  or  for  guidance.  If,  for  the  ease  and  convenience  of 
raising  a  revenue,  by  indirect  taxation,  the  government  shall  impose 
duties  upon  certain  imports,  these  should  be  taxed  upon  precisely  the 
same  principle  as  articles  of  domestic  growth  or  manufacture,  —  that 
is,  as  articles  which,  by  their  nature  or  consumption,  are  likely  to 
yield  the  most  revenue  with  the  least  inconvenience  to  the  public, — • 
and  not  at  all  as  articles  that  come  into  competition  with  the  products 
of  domestic  labor  or  skill.  Any  form  of  “protective”  tariff  is  false 
in  principle,  unjust  in  its  application,  and  ruinous  in  its  effects. 

(2.)  Finance. — .The  only  true  and  safe  financial  basis  for  govern¬ 
ment  and  people  is  specie,  in  such  proportion  that  it  serves  as  the 
circulating  medium  of  commerce,  or  is  faithfully  represented  by 
paper,  which  the  holder  knows  to  be,  at  any  time,  convertible  into 
specie  at  par.  The  government  of  the  United  States  in  its  financial 
policy  should  aim  directly  and  constantly  at  a  return  to  specie  pay¬ 
ments  :  indeed,  as*  often  happens  at  a  critical  turn  of  disease,  it  might 
be  best  for  the  patient  to  take  the  whole  of  the  bitter  potion  at  a 
single  gulp.  After  a  few  convulsive  contortions,  he  would  recover 
the  equilibrium  of  health. 

(3.)  Education.  —  The  German  notion,  that  it  belongs  to  the  State 
to  provide  for  the  culture  and  the  religion  of  its  citizens,  cannot  be 
applied  to  the  American  system  of  government.  In  matters  of  taste, 
as  in  matters  of  conscience,  men  must  be  left  free  for  their  own 
improvement  and  development,  in  so  far  as  they  do  not  trespass  upon 
the  rights  of  others,  nor  threaten  the  peace  and  order  of  society.  JL>ut 


30g  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


the  American  system  does  demand  that  every  man  shall  be  suffi¬ 
ciently  educated  for  the  intelligent  discharge  of  his  duties  as  a  citi¬ 
zen  ;  and  this  education  the  State  must  not  only  provide,  but  require 
of  every  man  as  a  qualification  for  voting,  jury-duty,  and  the  like.  As 
this  education  is  indispensable  to  the  safety  of  the  State,  every  citi¬ 
zen  must  be  taxed  for  it,  whether  he  makes  personal  use  of  it  or  not, 
just  as  he  is  taxed  for  the  police,  firemen,  militia,  &c.  The  State 
must  prescribe  a  course  of  preliminary  education,  simply  and  purely 
secular ;  and  this  course  should  be  obligatory  as  to  the  fact  and  matter 
of  it,  but  optional  as  to  the  place  and  method  of  it ;  that  is  to  say, 
there  should  be  public  shools  for  a  plain  secular  education,  open  to 
all.  This  same  education,  or  its  equivalent,  should  be  obligatory  for 
all ;  but  it  should  be  at  the  option  of  parents  to  send  their  children 
to  the  public  school,  or  have  them  taught  in  a  private  school,  or  by 
tutors  at  home. 

The  State  should  be  forbidden  to  provide  for  religious  instruction 
under  any  form  in  the  public  schools,  or  to  make  a  grant  of  money  to 
any  sectarian  school,  or  to  aid  any  religious  institution  whatsoever, 
either  directly  by  grant  of  land,  money,  or  credit,  or  indirectly  by 
exemption  from  taxation. 

(4.)  Suffrage.  —  Suffrage  should  be  equal  and  impartial ;  that  is  to 
say,  the  conditions  of  suffrage  should  be  alike  for  all,  and  fairly 
within  the  reach  of  all.  Though  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  aims  to  make  each  male  citizen 
twenty-one  years  of  age  a  voter,  —  so  far  as  the  United  States  could 
fix  the  terms  of  suffrage,  —  yet  each  State  should  make  it  a  condition 
of  voting,  that  the  native  citizen  shall  have  received  the  schooling 
specified  in  Section  3,  and  that  every  citizen  of  foreign  birth  shall 
pass  a  prescribed  examination  in  the  English  language.  It  is  true, 
that,  at  first,  several  States  would  disfranchise  a  portion  of  their  citi¬ 
zens,  and  thereby  lose  a  pro  rata  representation  in  Congress.  This, 
however,  the  plan  of  obligatory  education  would  remedy  in  one 
generation.  And,  by  the  way,  the  disqualification  rule  should  at 
once  be  enforced  against  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and  other  States 
that  already  have  an  educational  test.  This  would  satisfy  the  South 
that  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  was  not  an  act  of  sectional  tyranny, 
and  would  open  the  eyes  of  the  nation  to  the  egregious  stupidity  of 
the  second  clause  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  against  which  the 
writer  of  this  platform  protested  at  the  time. 

(5.)  Races.  —  The  government  of  the  United  States,  and  the  several 
State  governments,  should  know  no  races  as  such,  but  deal  with  all 
men  —  Negro,  Indian,  German,  Chinese,  Native  American — upon  the 
basis  of  equal  laws.  And  as,  on  the  one  hand,  the  Fifteenth  Amend¬ 
ment  provides  that  the  right  to  vote  shall  not  be  denied  or  abridged 
on  account  of  race  or  color,  so,  on  the  other  hand,  when  political 
organizations  are  formed  upon  the  basis  of  race,  and  for  the  exclusive 
interest  of  a  race,  —  white,  black,  German,  or  Chinese,  —  the  ring¬ 
leaders  of  the  same  should  be  punished  by  forfeiture  of  citizenship 
for  a  term  of  years,  and  the  candidates  of  such  “race”  party  be 
declared  ineligiljle  to  office. 

(G.)  Immigration.  —  The  government  of  the  United  States  should 


A  PLATFOEM  FOE  THE  NEW  CENTUEY. 


309 


do  nothing  to  invite  or  facilitate  emigration  from  foreign  countries 
to  America,  but  should  leave  this  to  the  operation  of  natural  laws. 
Least  of  all  should  it  interfere  with  the  civil  or  military  laws  of  other 
countries  touching  their  citizens,  so  as  to  tempt  these  to  emigration 
as  a  relief  from  obligations  at  home.  The  overstocking  of  the  labor 
market,  the  overcrowding  of  cities,  the  increase  of  strikes  and  of  com¬ 
munistic  demands,  are  a  warning  that  immigration  has  been  urged 
far  beyond  the  normal  condition  of  demand  and  supply. 

(7.)  Capital  and  Labor.  —  Government  should  in  no  wise  seek  to 
regulate  by  legislation  the  relations  of  capital  and  labor,  but,  protect¬ 
ing  both  alike  from  violence,  should  leave  them  to  their  own  bargains 
in  their  own  way. 

(8-)  The  Civil  Service.  —  The  civil  service  should  be  settled  upon 
a  basis  of  competitive  examination  and  graded  promotion,  offices  to 
be  held  during  good  behavior. 

(9.)  Sovereignty.  —  The  sovereignty  of  the  State  is  supreme  and 
indivisible.  Whoever,  therefore,  acknowdedges  any  other  organized 
power  as  superior  to  the  State  in  claiming  or  defining  his  allegiance, 
should  be  denied  the  rights  of  citizenship  in  the  United  States  and  in 
any  State  thereof. 

The  above  platform  is  not  put  forth  with  the  idea  that  anybody  • 
will  accept  it.  Nevertheless,  it  deals  with  the  questions  of  the  pres¬ 
ent  and  the  near  future ;  and  whoever  has  a  noble  ambition  to  serve 
his  country  in  public  life,  will  find,  ten  years  hence,  that  such  views  as 
these  will  command  the  confidence  and  support  of  a  great  body  of  the 
American  people. 


310  CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE. 


CONGRATULATIONS  FROM  EUROPEAN  SOVEREIGNS. 

Berlin,  June  9,  1870. 

William,  by  the  grace  of  God  Emperor  of  Germany ,  King  of  Prussia , 
Sfc.,  to  the  President  of  the  United  States. 

Great  and  good  Friend,  —  It  has  been  given  you  to  celebrate 
the  hundredth  anniversary  of  the  day  when  the  great  nation  oyer 
which  you  preside  took  rank  among  independent  States.  The  in¬ 
stitutions  organized  by  the  founders  of  the  Union,  who  wisely  con¬ 
sulted  the  lessons  of  history  with  regard  to  the  formation  of  States, 
have  developed  beyond  all  expectation.  To  be  able  to  congratulate 
you  and  the  American  nation  upon  this  occasion  is  all  the  more 
pleasing  to  me,  because,  since  the  friendly  alliance  which  my  august 
ancestor,  now  reposing  in  God,  —  Frederic  II.,  of  glorious  memory,  — 
concluded  with  the  United  States,  nothing  has  troubled  the  good 
understanding  between  Germany  and  America.  Their  friendship 
has  been  increased  and  developed  by  a  growing  interchange  in  every 
branch  of  commerce  and  science.  That  the  prosperity  of  the  United 
States  and  the  friendship  of  the  two  countries  may  continue*  to  in¬ 
crease  is  my  sincere  prayer,  as  it  is  my  firm  belief.  I  beg  you  to 
receive  this  fresh  assurance  of  my  highest  esteem. 

William. 

Ems,  J une  5,  1876. 

Alexander,  by  the  grace  of  God  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias. 

Mr.  President,  —  At  a  moment  when  the  people  of  the  United 
States  celebrate  the  centennial  period  of  their  national  existence,  I 
desire  to  express  to  you  the  sentiments  with  which  I  take  part  in  this 
celebration.  The  people  of  the  United  States  may  contemplate 
with  pride  the  immense  progress  which  their  energy  has  achieved 
within  the  period  of  a  century.  I  especially  rejoice,  that,  during  this 
centennial  period,  the  friendly  relations  between  our  respective  coun¬ 
tries  have  never  suffered  interruption,  but,  on  the  contrary,  have 
made  themselves  manifest  by  proofs  of  mutual  good-will.  I  there¬ 
fore  cordially  congratulate  the  American  people  in  the  person  of 
their  President ;  and  I  pray  that  the  friendship  of  the  two  countries 
may  increase  with  their  prosperity.  I  embrace  this  occasion  to  offer 
to  you  at  the  same  time  the  assurance  of  my  sincere  esteem  and  of 
my  high  consideration. 

Alexander. 

To  liis  Excellency  Gen.  Grant. 


Victor  Emanuel  II.,  by  the  grace  of  God  and  the  will  of  the  nation 
King  of  Italy ,  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  greet- 
ing. 

My  dear  and  good  Friend,  —  On  the  day  upon  which  the 
great  American  Republic  celebrates  the  centennial  anniversary  of 
its  existence,  it  is  our  desire  to  address  our  congratulations  and  those 


CENTENNIAL  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE.  3H 


of  our  people  to  you  personally,  and  to  the  nation  over  which  you 
preside,  and  which  with  admirable  ability  you  have  succeeded  in 
directing  to  its  noble  destiny.  Neither  the  distance  which  separates 
us,  nor  any  difference  of  race,  will  ever  weaken  in  us  and  in  our  peo¬ 
ple  that  firm  friendship  which  unites  us  with  the  brave  American  na¬ 
tion  with  which  for  a  hundred  years  Italy  has  had  relations  productive 
of  mutual  esteem.  We  are  inclined  to  convey  to  you  these  senti¬ 
ments  so  much  the  more  readily,  because,  for  the  purpose  of  the  more 
worthily  celebrating  the  memorable  day  by  the  monster  Exhibition 
at  Philadelphia,  you  were  pleased  to  invite  to  the  festival  all  the  na¬ 
tions  of  the  earth.  Accept  the  assurances  of  our  highest  esteem 
and  friendship,  together  with  the  prayers  which  we  offer  to  God  that 
he  may  have  you,  my  very  dear  friend,  in  his  holy  keeping.  —  Given 
at  Rome  on  the  11th  of  June,  1876. 

Your  good  friend, 


Countersigned,  Meligaki. 


Victor  Emanuel. 


312 


PUBLISHEKS’  NOTE. 


PUBLISHERS’  NOTE. 

The  preceding  pages  show  the  remarkable  favor  with  which 
Dr.  Thompson’s  Lectures  were  received,  and  the  estimate 
placed  upon  them  by  the  foremost  men  and  journals  in  Berlin, 
Dresden,  Florence,  Paris,  and  London. 

[Erom  the  Berlin  “  Kunst-Correspondenz  ”  of  March  1,  1876.] 

“Dr.  Joseph  P.  Thompson  began,  on  the  21st  of  February,  a  course 
of  lectures,  in  English,  upon  the  origin,  development,  and  results  of  that 
remarkable  and  unparalleled  event  in  the  world’s  history,  the  American 
Declaration  of  Independence.  Dr.  Thompson  is  welcomed  by  crowded 
audiences,  composed  of  American  and  English  residents,  and  an  influen¬ 
tial  and  learned  German  circle,  including  many  members  of  Parliament. 
The  lectures  exhibit  a  fulness  and  depth  of  historical  study,  and  are 
rich  in  philosophical  reflections  and  intellectual  comparisons  of  different 
nations  and  of  the  founders  of  political  systems.  The  lecturer  —  a 
patriot  of  the  New  World  in  the  finest  sense  of  the  word  —  is  thoroughly 
penetrated  with  the  historical  spirit,  and  is  especially  fair  toward  the  rich 
cycle  of  events  in  Germany.” 

[From  the  Berlin  “Fremdenblatt,”  Feb.  25,  1876.] 

“  Dr.  Thompson’s  lectures  are  attended  by  a  very  numerous  and  highly 
cultivated  audience,  including  several  members  of  the  diplomatic  corps, 
university  professors,  and  members  of  Parliament.  The  well-known, 
ready,  forcible,  and  clever  orator  is  followed  with  marked  attention.” 

[From  the  Berlin  correspondent  of  the  “  Weser  Zeitung,”  Bremen.] 

“  Sachse’s  Art  Salon,  in  which  these  lectures  are  given,  is  scarcely  able 
to  contain  the  audiences,  which  are  composed  of  Germans  as  well  as  of 
Americans  sojourning  here.  Dr.  Thompson,  who  has  an  enviable  reputa¬ 
tion  as  a  scholar  and  as  an  expounder  of  the  German  Church  polity,  is  an 
excellent  speaker,  a  perfect  master  of  his  subject,  and  knows  how  to 
engage  the  attention  of  his  hearers.” 


PUBLISHERS’  NOTE. 


313 


[From  the  Berlin  “  Staats  Anzeiger,”  an  official  journal,  of  March  15, 187G.] 

“The  famous  American  scholar  now  residing  here,  Dr.  Thompson, 
has  just  closed  his  course  of  lectures  on  the  American  nation,  delivered 
before  a  large  and  select  audience.  In  the  style  of  pragmatic  history, 
these  lectures  handled  the  institution  and  the  philosophical  development 
of  the  United  States  with  interesting  points  of  comparison  in  the  history 
of  France,  England,  and  Germany.  Dr.  Thompson  is  known  to  be  re¬ 
markably  versed  in  German  and  Prussian  affairs,  which  he  has  made  a 
fundamental  study.  The  style  and  manner  in  which  he  handled  the  his¬ 
torical  development  of  Germany  since  the  Reformation,  the  just  appre¬ 
ciation  which  he  awarded  to  the  Prussian  form  of  State  life,  the  high 
tribute  that  he  paid  to  the  royal  house  that  founded  the  State  and  had 
led  it  on  to  greatness,  evoked  the  warmest  applause  of  his  hearers,  at  least 
half  of  whom  were  Germans.  At  the  close  of  the  lectures,  special  ac¬ 
knowledgments  and  thanks  were  tendered  to  Dr.  Thompson  for  the 
highly  intellectual  tone  and  the  friendly  international  spirit  in  which  he 
had  carried  out  his  historical  parallels.  It  is  hoped  these  most  substan¬ 
tial  and  instructive  lectures  will  be  published.” 

[From  the  “Berlin  Post”  of  March  1,  1876.] 

“  Last  Wednesday,  at  the  close  of  a  series  of  lectures  on  the  history 
of  the  United  States,  delivered  by  Dr.  Thompson  to  a  numerous  and 
applauding  audience,  Prof.  Zumpt  arose  to  thank  the  orator  in  the 
following  words,  which  well  characterize  America’s  civilization  and  its 
relations  to  Germany:  — 

“‘It  seems  to  me  both  improper  and  ungrateful  that  we  who  have 
listened  to  these  lectures  should  silently  separate,  at  the  close  of  the 
course,  without  expressing  our  feelings.  I  therefore  venture  to  propose 
a  vote  of  thanks. 

“  ‘  This  vote  has  a  double  signification,  at  least  for  that  portion  of  the 
ladies  and  gentlemen  here  present,  who,  like  myself,  are  Germans.  We 
have  been  told  of  the  origin  of  the  United  States,  its  development, 
and  its  hopes  for  future  welfare.  America  and  Germany,  although 
taking  their  origin  in  opposite  elements  and  having  different  forms  of 
government,  have  still  the  same  principles,  —  religious  and  political  free¬ 
dom.  We  may,  perchance,  choose  different  paths;  but  the  goal  is  the 
same. 

“  ‘  If,  during  the  struggle  for  independence,  some  rulers  of  German 
principalities  were  base  enough  to  sell  their  subjects  as  instruments  for 
tyranny,  on  the  other  hand  we  Prussians  —  nay,  we  Germans  —  are 
proud  that  one  of  our  Great  Frederic’s  best  officers  fought  at  Washing¬ 
ton’s  side.  Light-hearted,  like  a  German  soldier,  brave,  and  true  to  his 
commander,  he  helped  to  organize  the  army  of  the  newly-born  republic. 

“  4  We  are  accustomed  in  Germany  to  celebrate  birthdays ;  also,  when 


314 


PUBLISHERS’  NOTE. 


a  person  lias  for  a  number  of  years  held  office,  we  assemble  around  Mm 
to  wisli  him  a  long  life  and  the  continuation  of  his  happiness.  In  the 
course  of  this  year  the  American  nation  will  celebrate  its  birthday,  after 
having  gloriously  lived  through  the  first  century  of  its  existence.  A 
hundred  years  are  long  for  human  life :  they  are  but  short  for  that  of  a 
State.  Yes,  America  is  young,  very  young;  but  the  more  time  has  she 
to  develop,  the  more  can  we  expect  from  her,  the  more  can  she  accom¬ 
plish  for  the  advancement  of  humanity  apd  civilization.  Now  that  we 
have  heard  these  six  lectures  on  the  birth  and  growth  of  this  nation, 
how  can  the  purport  of  our  vote  of  thanks  be  other  than  “  Long 
live  and  flourish  America  ”  ? 

“  ‘  The  second  part  of  our  thanks  is  personal,  and  refers  to  Dr. 
Thompson :  it  is  in  common  to  all,  both  Americans  and  Germans.  Our 
learned  and  eloquent  friend  is  a  warm  patriot  in  the  noblest  sense  of  the 
word;  but  next  to  his  own  country,  which  he  naturally  prefers  to  all 
others,  Germany  is  probably  that  which  is  dearest  to  him.  He  lives 
amongst  us,  and  knows  us  well :  our  customs,  and  ways  of  thinking,  are 
familiar  to  him.  He  is  also  a  glowing  admirer  of  those  who  are  at  the 
head  of  our  government,  of  our  emperor,  and  of  the  whole  illustrious 
family  of  the  Hohenzollerns.  Dr.  Thompson  fights  like  a  veteran  at  our 
side  in  the  war  which  we  wage  against  religious  oppression.  Of  his  lec¬ 
tures  themselves  I  will  say  nothing.  They  are  above  my  praise.  Words 
would  fail  me  to  value  them  according  to  their  worth.  I  will  only  add, 
that,  as  to  myself,  I  have  listened  to  them  with  ever-increasing  interest 
and  rising  admiration.  I  therefore  consider  it  a  duty  of  simple  grati¬ 
tude  openly  to  express  our  thanks  to  Dr.  Thompson.’  ” 

This  address  was  accompanied  with  a  crown  of  laurel,  pre¬ 
sented  by  the  German  ladies  who  had  attended  the  course. 
This  was  bound  with  the  Prussian  colors,  and  bore  the  motto,  — 

“Du  gabst  so  Yiel  uns,  aus  dem  Schatze  Deines  Geistes! 

Doch  nicht  Verstand  allein,  die  edle  Seele  sprach  aus  Dir; 

D’rum  sagen  wir  aus  ganzer  Seele,  Dank  dafiir.” 

The  lecturer  having  met  all  the  expenses  of  the  course  (the 
lectures  being  free),  at  the  close  a  handsome  testimonial  was 
presented  to  him  by  the  American  residents  of  Berlin  “as  a 
token  of  gratitude  for  the  able  and  impartial  manner  in  which 
he  had  brought  before  a  German  audience  a  fair  picture  of 
America  and  its  institutions.” 

In  Dresden  the  lectures  were  given  in  the  commodious  rooms 
of  the  “American  Club,”  which  were  filled  to  their  utmost 


PUBLISHERS’  NOTE.  315 

capacity.  At  the  close  of  the  course  the  following  address  was 
made  by  George  Griswold,  Esq.,  president  of  the  club  :  — 

“  On  behalf  of  the  club  which  you  have  so  greatly  honored,  and  of 
the  ladies  and  gentlemen  here  assembled  who  have  been  attentive  and 
delighted  listeners,  I  desire  to  return  you  heartfelt  thanks  for  your  very 
able  and  eloquent  lectures. 

“  Especially  do  we  thank  you  for  your  disinterested  kindness  in  having 
taught  us  so  much  concerning  the  causes  which  led  the  States  to  separate 
from  the  mother-country,  and  concerning  the  virtues  of  our  forefathers 
who  framed  and  organized  the  government  which  has  been  such  a  boon 
to  mankind,  and  under  which,  in  so  brief  a  period,  the  United  States  of 
America  have  been  enabled  to  take  a  foremost  stand  amongst  the  most 
enlightened  and  powerful  nations  of  the  world. 

“  To  you,  sir,  we  are  indebted  for  much  valuable  historical  and  political 
knowledge,  enlightened  ideas  of  government,  and  statistical  information 
which  we  could  not  have  acquired  or  even  collated  for  ourselves,  but 
which  could  not  have  been  imparted  in  more  impressive,  eloquent,  and 
agreeable  language  or  manner ;  and,  although  in  numbers  we  are  less  than 
the  brilliant  and  learned  assemblies  you  have  so  recently  addressed  at 
Florence  and  Berlin,  be  assured  that  we  have  not  been  less  attentive,  less 
instructed,  or  less  gratified,  and  that  we  are  not  less  grateful,  than  they. 

“  Again  thanking  you  for  the  benefit  of  your  vast  researches  and  of 
your  impartial  comments  on  the  centennial  history  of  our  free  institu¬ 
tions,  we  bid  you  God  speed  in  your  disinterested,  praiseworthy,  and 
patriotic  endeavors  to  enlighten  your  countrymen  and  the  people  amongst 
whom  they  are  temporarily  sojourning. 

“We  wish  you  health,  long  life,  prosperity,  and  happiness.” 


In  Florence,  by  the  generous  invitation  of  the  “  Circulo 
Filologico,”  their  spacious  and  elegant  hall  was  placed  at  the 
disposal  of  the  lecturer.  Janies  Jackson  Jarves,  Esq.,  the 
well-known  art-critic,  wrote  to  “The  American  Register,” 
Paris,  “  Dr.  Thompson’s  accomplishments  as  an  orator  and 
scholar,  and  his  specially  patriotic  course  in  Germany  as  a 
fitting  representative  of  the  more  serious  side  of  American 
character,  are  peculiar  qualifications  for  his  opportune  appear¬ 
ance  at  the  present  moment  in  Italy  as  a  lecturer ;  although  it 
is  to  be  regretted  that  he  could  not  deliver  this  course  in  Rome, 
where  he  would  be  certain  to  have  an  appreciative  Italian  au¬ 
dience,  in  part  from  the  members  of  Parliament  and  statesmen 


316 


PUBLISHERS’  NOTE. 


interested  in  the  science  of  politics  and  social  problems  of  the 
period.”  But  Italy  was  well  represented  in  the  brilliant  and 
enthusiastic  auditory  at  Florence ;  and,  at  the  close  of  the 
course,  Prof.  P.  Villari,  also  a  member  of  Parliament,  paid 
a  most  eloquent  tribute  to  the  United  States,  and  moved  the 
thanks  of  the  assembly  to  the  lecturer  “  for  his  appreciative 
recognition  of  Italy  in  her  relations  to  the  progress  of  liberty, 
learning,  and  art,  as  well  as  for  his  clear,  learned,  and  impartial 
anatysis  of  American  freedom.” 

In  Paris  the  following  resolutions  were  adopted,  being  moved 
b}r  Isaac  H.  Birch,  Esq.,  and  supported  by  Prof.  A.  V. 
Wittmeyer :  — 

“Resolved,  That  we,  citizens  of  the  United  States  sojourning  in  Paris, 
have  seen  with  pride  and  satisfaction  that  our  compatriot,  Dr.  Joseph  P. 
Thompson,  has,  on  many  occasions  during  his  residence  in  Europe,  ren¬ 
dered  invaluable  service  by  his  able,  timely,  and  patriotic  endeavors  to 
teach  the  history,  expound  the  principles,  and  defend  the  honor,  of  the 
institutions  and  government  of  the  United  States,  and  secure  for  them 
juster  appreciation  and  a  more  legitimate  influence  among  European 
nations. 

“Resolved,  That  in  the  series  of  comprehensive,  discriminative,  in¬ 
teresting,  and  impressive  addresses  upon  the  origin,  principles,  progress, 
and  probable  future  of  the  nation,  with  which  Dr.  Thompson  has  favored 
us,  we  have  discovered  fresh  proofs  of  the  purity,  patriotism,  wisdom, 
and  statesmanship  of  the  founders  of  our  government;  and,  while  our 
admiration  of  our  country  and  its  institutions  has  been  heightened  by 
the  history  and  the  vindication  to  which  we  have  listened,  our  hearts 
have  at  the  same  time  been  warmed  by  renewed  assurances  of  their  per¬ 
petuity. 

“Resolved,  That  with  the  expression  of  our  high  appreciation  of  his 
good  offices,  and  the  hope  that  his  valuable  addresses  may  soon  be  given 
to  the  world  and  come  to  us  again  in  printed  form,  we  hereby  tender  to 
Dr.  Thompson  our  warmest  thanks. 

“  Paris,  May  29,  1876.” 

In  London  the  lectures  were  repeatedly  noticed  with  favor 
b}T  the  “  Times,”  u  Daily  News,”  “Morning  Post,”  “Adver¬ 
tiser,”  “  Hour,”  and  other  journals.  The  audience  was  almost 
exclusively  English,  and  of  a  highly  distinguished  and  represen¬ 
tative  character.  In  moving  thanks,  Dr.  Henry  Allen  said  of 


PUBLISHERS’  NOTE. 


BIT 


the  lecture  on  the  Declaration,  “  It  was  as  strong  as  wise  and 
good.  He  had  never  known  more  thought  and  information 
compressed  into  a  single  discourse.”  Henry  Richard,  Esq., 
M.P.,  said,  “The  lecture  on  the  Constitution  combined  in  a 
rare  degree  a  profound  political  philosophy  with  a  manly  elo¬ 
quence.  He  wished  it  might  be  printed,  and  widely  read  in 
England.”  Prof.  Legge  of  Oxford  said  “his  ideas  about 
America  had,  for  the  first  time,  gained  coherence  through  these 
lectures.  They  ought  to  be  published  for  the  million.” 


« 


INDEX. 


Abolitionists,  128. 

Absolutism,  142. 

Adams,  C.  Francis,  98,  99. 

Adams,  John,  anecdote  of,  59. 

“  “  death  of,  61. 

“  “  on  corruption,  251,  255. 

“  “  on  revolution,  17,  89. 

“  “  on  Samuel  Adams,  60. 

“  “  speech  of,  55  note. 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  198. 

Adams,  Samuel,  55. 

“  “  on  Establishment,  96. 

Admiralty,  British,  135. 

Alabama,  136  n. 

Amendments,  constitutional,  128. 
America,  her  defence,  viii,  ix,  xi. 

“  more  a  society  than  a  govern¬ 
ment,  x. 

Americanism,  native,  287. 

Americans,  character  of,  305. 

“  in  Europe,  vii,  ix. 
Anglo-Saxons,  22. 

Annexation,  177. 

Appeal  to  the  South,  137. 

Arbitration,  240. 

Aristocracy,  a  guild,  80. 

“  Church  an,  80. 

“  natural,  79,  141. 

Army,  Continental,  1, 110. 

“  standing,  179,  192. 

Art  as  culture,  234. 

“  in  Berlin,  234. 

“  in  Dresden,  234. 

“  in  London,  233. 

“  in  Paris,  233.  \ 

Assassination  of  Lincoln,  192. 

Aumale,  Due  d’,  5. 

Bazaine,  Marshal,  4. 

Beccaria,  72. 

Bellamy,  230. 

Bell,  Independence,  53. 

Benefits  of  United  States,  202. 

Bentham,  72. 

Berlin,  character  of,  253. 

Bluntschli,  102, 141  n. 

Board  of  Trade,  39,  40  n. 

Books  in  America,  39. 

Bordeaux  Assembly,  5. 


Border  ruffianism,  180. 

Boston,  early  culture  of,  227. 

“  evacuation  of,  53. 

“  merchants  of,  239. 

“  port  bill,  48. 

“  tea-party,  47. 

Brougham  on  Washington,  151. 
Brown,  John,  190. 

Bryant,  209. 

Bulgaria,  horrors  in,  155. 

Bunker  Hill,  1,  4,  51. 

Burke  on  taxation,  19,  28,  99, 100. 

“  quoted,  5  n,  6,  16,  17. 

Burr,  his  treason,  170. 

Bushnell,  Horace,  208,  229. 
Buxton,  Sir  Thomas  Fowell,  xxiii. 

Ctesar  and  God,  298. 

“  his  character,  159. 
Caesarism,  163,  301. 

Calhoun,  John  C.,  172,  seg. 
California,  Chinese  in,  282. 

“  the  story  of,  206. 
Calvinism  and  freedom,  30. 
Capital  and  labor,  302. 

Carlyle  on  America,  203. 

Carolina,  North,  129,  130. 

Carolina,  South,  129, 130, 172. 
Carroll  of  Carrollton,  56  n. 

Caste,  278. 

Catholicism,  291. 

Centennial,  the,  viii,  ix. 
Centralization,  301. 

Charta,  Magna,  80. 

Chinese,  282. 

Christ  Church,  London,  xxiii. 
Christ,  doctrine  of  man,  105. 
Christian  progress,  205,  209,  220. 
Church  and  liberty,  29. 

“  Establishment,  94,  96. 

“  independence  of,  33. 
Churches  in  New  York,  220. 
Cities,  evils  of,  258. 

Citizenship,  obligations  of,  288. 
Civilization,  effect  of,  24,  180. 

Civil  service,  199. 

“  “  Bluntschli  on,  274. 

“  “  in  Prussia,  201, 272. 

Clericalism,  230. 


819 


320 


INDEX. 


66 

66 

66 

i6 

66 

66 


66 

66 


66 

66 

66 

66 

66 


Colonies,  confederation  of,  111. 
loyalty  of,  14. 
patience  of,  46. 
praised  by  tlie  king,  14. 
statistics  of,  5. 
variety  of  government,  6. 
various  government  of,  27. 
Commons,  journals  of,  14,  seq. 

“  votes  supplies,  25,  seq. 
Communism,  301. 

Confederacy  of  New  England,  7. 
Confederation,  61. 

“  failure  of,  111,  120. 

“  not  a  constitution,  137. 

“  of  colonies,  111. 

rejected,  137. 

Swiss,  114. 

Congress,  contests  in,  198. 

“  Continental,  1,  3,  109. 

“  weakness  of.  111. 

Conscience,  rights  of,  289,  seq. 
Constitution,  adoption  of,  61,  106,  139. 
and  nation,  161. 
character  of,  103. 

English,  106. 

glory  of  American,  111,  161. 
preamble  of,  138. 

Continental  army,  109. 

Convention,  Constitutional,  122. 

“  character  of,  123. 

“  wisdom  of,  130. 

Copyright,  213. 

Corliss  Engine,  195. 

Correspondence,  committees  of,  proposed 
by  May  hew,  37. 

Corruption  in  America,  249. 

“  in  Austria  and  Italy,  249. 
Cotton-gin,  188. 

Crime,  percentage  of  foreign,  182. 

Cuba,  177. 

Cultivated,  guild  of  the,  80  n. 

Culture,  Arnold  on,  222. 

Emerson  on,  221. 
in  Germany,  230. 
true,  224,  230. 

Dana,  Richard  EL,  jun.,  48. 

Debt  of  Revolution,  116. 

Declaration  of  1  ndependence,  1. 

"  effects  of,  95,  104. 

indictment  of  king  in,  93. 
in  Philadelphia,  98. 
meaning  of,  xiv,  63. 

“  moderation  of,  85. 

“  not  a  declaration  of  war,  1, 10, 

65. 

“  of  Rights,  3,  10,  53. 

philosophy  of,  66. 
signers  of,  57. 
syllogism  in,  66. 

De  Kalb  on  Continental  money,  186. 

k<  on  Washington,  157  n. 

Demagogism,  142. 

Devonshire,  xxv. 

Dickens,  Bret  Harte  on,  211. 

“  his  mercenary  spirit,  216. 

“  Macaulay  on,  212  n. 

“  on  America,  211,  215. 

Douglass,  Frederick,  279. 

Dred  Scott  decision,  189. 

Duties  of  century,  248. 


66 

66 

66 


66 

66 

66 

66 


66 

66 

66 


Education  compulsory,  275. 

in  Prussia,  201. 
in  United  States,  209. 
Election  of  President.  145. 

Elector,  the  Great,  154,  200. 
Emancipation,  xxiv. 

Emerson  on  Boston,  239. 

Emmons,  Nathanael,  sermons  of,  36. 
England  in  the  Rebellion,  135  n. 

“  love  for.  xvii. 

“  perils  of,  195. 

“  separation  from,  xiv. 
Englishman,  the,  in  America,  218. 

“  the  insular,  240. 
Englishmen,  liberties  of,  2,  101,  102. 
Equality,  xx,  xxi,  102. 

“  French  notion  of,  68. 

“  of  men,  66. 

Establishment,  94,  96. 

Ethics  in  government,  88,  101,  102. 
Eulogy  on  Lincoln,  193. 

Evarts,  W.  M.,  98,  99,  103. 

Federal,  United  States  not,  138. 
Fehrbellin,  victory  of,  200. 
filibustering,  178. 

Forms  of  government,  101. 

Forster,  Life  of  Dickens,  214. 

Fourth  of  July,  celebration  of,  105. 1 

“  “in  London,  xiii,  xxiii. 

France,  a  nation,  5,  202. 

“  New,  143  n. 

“  •  Revolution  in,  88,  106. 

Franklin  and  Grenville,  39. 

“  before  Parliament,  26,  42,  seq. 

“  Laboulaye  on,  107. 

“  letter  of,  to  Quincy,  58. 
letter  of,  to  Strahan,  58. 
on  Union,  111,  122. 
return  of,  from  England,  57. 
wit  of,  55,  64  7i. 

Fraud  in  Germany,  250. 

Frederic,  52,  145,  148,  151. 

Freedom,  ethical,  91. 

“  inertia  of,  117. 

“  spirit  of,  118. 

Freeman,  Mr.  E.  A.,  23,  106. 

Free  trade,  185. 

French  eqalite,  68. 

“  war,  14,  44. 

Fugitive  slaves,  132. 


u 

66 

66 

66 


Gasparin,  Count,  2. 

Generals,  United-States,  192. 
Geography  of  United  States,  175. 
George  III.,  character  of,  105. 

“  indictment  of,  94. 
Georgia,  129,  130. 

German  ignorance  of  America,  241. 
German  in  public  schools,  284. 
Germans  in  America,  181,  185,  276. 

“  on  America,  253. 

Germany,  liberty  lost  in,  24. 

“  unity  of,  63,  230. 
Gettysburg,  191. 

Gladstone,  12,  304  n. 

Goodyear,  237. 

Government  a  science,  75. 

“  by  people,  102. 

“  its  object,  xiv,  70. 

“  local,  22,  4G. 


INDEX. 


821 


Government,  Teutonic,  23. 

“  Greatest  happiness,”  72. 

Gieeley,  Horace,  125. 

Grenville,  39. 

Grote  on  Switzerland,  140  n. 

Hall,  Rev.  Newman,  xxiii,  xxv. 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  108. 

“  on  finance,  186. 

“  “  on  national  govern¬ 

ment,  118. 

Hampden,  John,  20. 

Hancock,  John,  54. 

“  “  proscribed,  55. 

Happiness  an  ethical  right,  92. 

Harrison,  Gen.,  187. 

Harte,  Bret,  211,  283. 

Hartford  Convention,  170. 

Harvard  College,  great  men  of,  228. 

“  oiigin  of,  227. 

Hayne,  Senator,  171. 

Heroes,  true,  152. 

Holienzollern,  house  of,  63,  117,  152. 

Holst,  Von,  12. 

Hooker,  Thomas,  101. 

Hope,  grounds  of,  306. 

Humbugs.  302. 

Hume  on  Puritans,  35. 

Huxley  on  American  museums,  246. 

“  on  the  United  States.  194. 
Hyacinthe  on  America,  219. 

Ilfracombe,  xviii. 

Immigration,  180. 

“  its  benefits  and  evils,  181. 

Independence,  Declaration  of,  xiv,  1,  10. 

“  in  Philadelphia,  98. 

“  resolution  for,  59. 

Independent,  The,  128. 

Indian  war,  14,  44. 

Individual,  144  n. 

Indulgences,  sale  of,  20. 

Inertia  of  freedom,  117. 

International,  Christianity  more  than, 
xxvi. 

Irish  in  America,  182,  185,  276. 

Iroquois,  treaty  with,  7. 

Jackson  on  Bank  of  United  States,  186. 

“  on  the  Union,  172. 

Jannet,  C.,  on  America,  249. 

Jefferson,  author  of  Declaration,  61. 

“  death  of,  61. 

“  false  views  of,  89. 

“  on  aristocracy,  79. 

“  on  government,  77. 

“  on  jury,  82. 

“  on  slavery,  95. 

“  on  suffrage,  74. 

“  on  the  Union,  171. 

Johnson,  Andrew,  192. 

John  the  apostle,  225. 

4,  celebration  of,  98. 
in  London,  xiii. 

Juiy,  trial  by,  81,  82. 

Kalb,  De,  52. 

Kant  on  development,  225. 

Kemper,  Gov.,  on  the  Union,  174. 

Labor  question,  282,  seq. 


Laboulaye  on  France  and  America,  106, 
144  n. 

“  on  Washington,  108. 

Language,  unity  in,  284. 

League  of  colonies,  113. 

Lexington,  1  n. 

“  battle  of,  50. 

Liberty,  religious,  xvii. 

“  “  Adams  on,  169. 

“  “  English,  103. 

“  “  Mill  on,  76. 

“  “  organized,  107. 

Life-boat,  69. 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  xxiii,  23,  110. 

“  “  as  President,  190. 

“  “  assassination  of,  192. 

“  “  eulogy  on,  193. 

“  “  interview  with,  126. 

“  “  on  slavery,  190,  199. 

Lincoln  Tower,  xxiii. 

Long  Parliament,  111. 

Louisiana,  purchase  of,  170. 

Lowell  on  Burns,  210. 

“  on  Frederic,  154. 

Loyalty,  Sherman  on,  153 
“  spirit  of,  153. 

Luise  of  Prussia,  306. 

Luther  as  reformer,  20. 

Macaulay  on  decay,  160. 

“  on  Reform  Bill,  166. 

“  on  republicanism,  166. 

Madison,  his  papers,  123. 

“  on  confederacy,  116. 

“  on  slavexy,  132. 

Magna  Charta,  80. 

Majority,  tyranny  of,  72. 

Mammonism,  218. 

Manhood,  xiii,  137,  306. 

Man  in  society,  71. 

Manners  of  early  times,  124. 

Mason  and  Dixon,  172. 

Mason  on  slavery,  134. 

Material  civilization,  203,  205. 

Materialism  hinders  culture,  22-t. 

“  not  American,  xvii,  xxiv. 

“  tyranny  of,  69. 

Mayflower,  32. 

Maylxe w,  Jonathan,  37,  seq. 

Mecklenburg  Declaration,  59  n. 

Men  created  equal,  67. 

“  rights  of,  Jefferson  on,  77. 

“  “  Mill  on,  76. 

Mercenaries,  German,  52. 

Mexico,  177,  188. 

Military  occupation,  179. 

Mill,  John  Stuart,  76. 

Mississippi,  the,  170,  175. 

Missouri  Compromise,  172,  189. 

Mobocracy,  142. 

Mommsen  on  Rome,  159,  177. 

Monarchy,  predictions  of,  62. 

Money,  Continental,  186. 

Monroe  on  confederacy,  120. 

Morier  on  government,  23  n. 

Mornronism,  289. 

Napoleon,  xiv,  146,  seq. 

Napoleon.  Louis,  125. 

Nationalities,  foreign,  dangers  of,  284. 
Nation  analyzed,  4. 


322 


INDEX. 


Nation  defined,  4,  80  n. 

«  Fiance  a,  5,  9,  12,  83,  96,  161,  202. 

“  tlie  colonies  a,  4. 

Nations  mixed  in  colonies,  34,  seq. 

“  Nation,  The,”  255. 

Native  Americans,  180,  183. 

Nativism,  287. 

Negroes  as  “wards,”  278. 

“  characteristics  of,  276. 

New  England,  confederacy  of,  7. 

“  influence  of,  218,  229. 

“  names  in,  xxv. 

“  spirit  of,  143  n ,  226. 

News,  The  Sussex  Daily,  xix. 

New  York,  churches  in,  221. 

North-west  Territory,  134. 

Nullification,  172. 

Oberlin,  278. 

O’Connell,  167. 

Office  not  a  right,  74,  75. 

Ordinance  of  1787,  134. 

Otis,  James,  advises  a  congress,  8,  16,  37, 
40,  55,  101. 

Paine,  Thomas,  60. 

Palfrey,  28  n. 

Parliament,  English,  rows  in,  167. 

“  Franklin  before,  26. 

“  subservient  to  George  III.,  26. 

“  the  German,  127  n. 

“  the  Long,  111. 

Party-spirit,  162. 

“  in  England,  165. 

Patriotism,  viii. 

Peace,  xviii,  xxv. 

People,  a,  11  n. 

“  government  by,  78,  102, 115. 
Perfection  not  to  be  looked  for,  xv. 

Perils  of  the  century,  248. 

Personality,  xiv,  xv. 

“  Person  ”  in  Constitution,  133. 
Philadelphia,  convention  at,  122. 

“  Declaration  in,  98. 

Pilgrims,  memorial  of,  xxv,  31. 

Pius  IX.,  173. 

Platform,  307. 

Plato  on  Republic,  248. 

Plymouth,  Pilgrims  in,  xxv,  31. 

Political  rights,  75. 

Population  of  United  States,  182. 

Prayer,  Book  of,  295. 

Preachers  of  New  England,  35,  101. 
Presbyterians,  Washington’s  reply  to, 
150  n. 

President,  first  election  of,  145. 

“  how  elected,  142. 

“  making  the,  125. 

“  powers  of,  142. 

“  re-election  of,  126. 

Press  in  England,  168. 

Priestley,  72. 

Property  suffrage  in  cities,  258. 
“Protection,”  xvi. 

Prussia,  149. 

“  Crown  Prince  of,  200. 

“  origin  of,  200. 

Puritan  spirit,  189. 

Qualitative,  141. 

Quantitative,  141. 

Quincy  on  Adams,  58  n. 


Race  in  the  United  States,  Chinese,  282. 

“  “  “  German,  183. 

“  “  “  Irish,  182. 

“  “  “  native,  183. 

“  “  “  negro,  282. 

Rahel  quoted,  251. 

Ranke  on  the  Reformation,  21. 

Rebellion  of  1861,  61,  197,  277. 

“  Shays’s,  71, 121. 

“  true  view  of,  277. 

Reconstruction,  its  blunder,  278. 

Reeleaux,  Prof.,  on  German  industry,  244. 

“  “  on  the  United  States,  244. 

Religion  and  liberty,  29. 

“  in  America,  220. 

“  in  colonies,  30,  seq.,  218. 

Religious  liberty,  xvii,  289,  seq. 

“  “  abuses  of,  289. 

Representation,  slave,  131. 

Republican  party,  189. 

Republic,  a  study,  63. 

Repudiation,  187. 

Resistance,  duty  of,  86. 

Revolution,  American,  distinguished  from 
French,  2,  87,  111. 

“  American,  justified,  11. 

“  English,  83. 

“  French,  145. 

“  John  Adams  on,  17. 

“  right  of,  84,  85,  100. 

“  sources  of,  21. 

Revolutionist  in  Europe,  84. 

Rights,  Declaration  of,  3, 10. 

“  from  God,  69. 

“  “  inalienable,”  68. 

“  Jefferson  on,  77. 

“  natural  and  political,  77. 
Robinson,  John,  father  of  liberty,  29,  seq. 
Romanism  in  America,  291. 

Rome,  Mommsen  on,  159,  177. 

Ruskin  on  corruption,  254. 

Russia,  corruption  in,  250. 

“  expansion  of,  177,  201. 


Saturday  Review,  13. 

Schiller  on  rights,  19. 

Schurz,  Carl,  289  n. 

Search,  right  of,  188. 

Secession,  Calhoun  on,  173. 

‘  ‘  excluded  from  Constitution,  140. 

“  no  right  of,  11,  12,  115. 
Sectionalism  of  slavery,  171. 

“  Washington  on,  169. 
“Self-evident  truths,”  63. 
Self-government,  7,  9. 

Sermons  of  New  England,  35. 

Shams,  204. 

Shays’s  Rebellion,  71, 121. 

Sherman,  Gen.,  153. 

Sidney,  Algernon,  101. 

Signers  of  Declaration,  57. 

Simon  on  France,  143  n 
Slavery,  28.  \ 

“  brought  in  by  abolitionists,  128. 

“  cause  of  rebellion,  197. 

“  in  representation,  131. 

“  Jefferson  on,  95. 

“  not  in  Constitution,  128. 

“  sectional,  171. 

Slaves,  fugitive,  132. 

Slave-trade,  131. 


INDEX. 


323 


Slave-trade,  abolished,  135. 

Socialism,  301. 

Society,  American,  100. 

“  for  man,  71. 

“  Mill  on,  76. 

“  rights  of,  79. 

“  sovereignty,  73. 

Sonderbund,  Swiss,  114  n,  140  n. 

South,  appeal  to,  137. 

“  reconstruction  of,  197. 

Sovereignty,  72. 

“  Mill  on,  76. 

Spain,  202. 

Speculations  in  Germany,  250. 

Stamp  Act,  13. 

“  how  resisted,  42. 

“  of  Leo  X.,  20,  42. 

“  repeal  of,  46. 

Standing  army,  179,  192. 

Statesmanship,  304. 

State  rights,  173. 

Stephens,  A.  H.,  on  slavery,  197. 

“  “  on  union,  174. 

Steuben,  52. 

Storrs,  R.  L.,  98. 

Suffrage,  experience  of,  274. 

“  in  cities,  258. 

“  Jeiferson  on,  74. 

“  Mill  on,  76. 

“  negro,  199. 

“  not  natural  right,  74. 

“  restriction  of,  271,  seq. 

“  woman,  259. 

Sumner,  Charles,  303. 

Sumner,  Prof.,  on  suffrage,  271. 

Sunday  in  America,  219. 

Supreme  Court,  143. 

Surgery,  American,  236. 

Surrey  Chapel,  xxiii,  seq. 

Sussex  Daily  News,  xix,  seq. 

Switzerland,  government  of,  114,  140  n. 
“  Grote  on,  140  n. 

Syllabus,  295. 

Syllogism  in  Declaration,  66. 

Tacitus  on  Germans,  22. 

Taft,  Attorney-General,  257  n. 

Tariff,  172,  185. 

Taxation  and  representation,  19,  40. 

Burke  on,  19. 

“  why  resisted,  13,  18. 

Tea-party,  Boston,  47. 

Tea  tax,  47. 

Tecumseh,  187. 

Territory,  North-western,  134. 

“  of  the  United  States,  177. 

Tests  of  government,  162. 

Teutonic  race,  22. 

Theology,  New-England,  229. 

Thiers  on  Napoleon,  157. 

Thought,  vitality  of,  102. 


Times,  London,  on  the  Centenary,  xvi,  13, 
50,  160. 

Tocqueville,  De,  12,  219,  232. 
Town-meeting,  22. 

“  attempt  to  suppress,  48. 

“  described,  27. 

Townshend,  41. 

Trades-unions,  298. 

Tripoli,  war  with,  187. 

Troops  quarfered  on  colonies,  49. 

Tyranny  of  materialism,  69. 

Ultramontanism,  230,  291. 

Union,  geographical,  175. 

“  spirit  of,  9,  115. 

United  States,  area  of,  203. 

“  benefits  of,  202. 

“  no  failure,  xvi,  10. 

Universal  suffrage,  272. 

Usurpation  of  George  III.,  18. 

“  of  Parliament,  46. 

Vaticanism,  230. 

Versailles  Assembly,  5. 

Veto,  President’s,  142. 

Vicissitudes  of  century,  159. 

Virginia,  130. 

Walpole,  Horace,  15. 

War,  civil,  196. 

“  of  Independence,  HO. 

Wars,  how  conducted,  192. 

“  of  United  States,  61,  187,  seq. 
Washington,  xxiii,  3,  52,  53,  108. 

“  as  general,  149. 

“  election  of,  145. 

“  Farewell  Address  of,  150. 

“  greatness  of,  151. 

“  his  solitary  joke,  127. 

“  his  style,  150. 

“  on  confederacy,  117,  121. 

“  on  Constitution,  139. 

“  on  independence,  109. 

Webster  on  Adams  and  Jefferson,  61. 

“  on  Hartford  Convention,  171. 

“  on  nullification,  172. 

“  on  territory,  177,  239. 

Westminster  Review,  mistakes  of,  13,  16. 
Whittier,  50. 

Wilberforce,  xxiii. 

William,  Emperor  of  Germany,  152. 
Williams,  Roger,  290  n. 

Winthrop,  R.  C.,  98. 

Witherspoon,  57  n. 

Woman,  influence  of,  207. 

“  suffrage,  259. 

Wrangel,  Marshal,  152. 

Vale  College,  origin  of,  229. 

Yeomanry  of  New  England,  36. 


